Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2018

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2018 [1].

---

HMS Erin

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently tweaked it a bit. As usual I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and any unexplained or unlinked nautical jargon that I may have missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead and first section, 1a:

• "The class was designed to be at least the equal of any other ship afloat or building."—> "afloat or under construction"?
• "When the First World War opened in August 1914,"—I've not seen that verb used for a real war. It's more what I'd expect if at the opera. "started"?
  • What, you don't think of the war as a tragedy of epic proportions? ;-) I went with "began".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agency is weird (same as first bullet above): "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April" ... ships don't construct. "Construction of X had only begun in ..."
  • This gets into the anthropomorphization of ships where they are given agency as a stylistic shortcut even though everyone knows that the only actors are the humans aboard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) \
    • It's very bizarre. I trip over it. We don't want readers to do that to. And it's so easy to fix. Tony (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Later: I consulted a linguist on this example—he's an English-language professional. He agreed immediately with my objection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agency again: "The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a maximum speed of ..." ... those turbines have a mind of their own. "were intended", surely.
  • And my linguist friend suggested this would be better, avoiding my objection: ""The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • So the original wording is OK?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies—I pasted the old version in rather than his suggestion: "The turbines, rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW), were intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That reads nicely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• As well as reducing the density of she/her, we can tame an already-cluttered sentence: "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil to give her a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)." –> "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil for a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).
• 'A', 'B', 'Q', 'X' and 'Y' ... I thought MOS insisted on double quotes. Maybe it's changed.
  • I'm using MOS:SINGLE as these actually aren't quotes, but rather names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I should look at MOS more closely. Tony (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick." It's close enough to elide, I think. Or maybe even: "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were , supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick."
  • I think just the "they" should be deleted as your last suggestion reads rather oddly to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Tony (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally pretty good so far. Tony (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments support by Nick-D

It's good to see the article on this interesting ship at FAC. However, it seems a bit under-developed compared to other recent FAs on battleships. I've noted some areas below where the article could be broadened, sources permitting of course (which I suspect may be the underlying issue)

• "The second of the two ships of the Reşadiye-class battleships would have been known as Fatih Sultan Mehmed." - not sure that the name of the other ship in this class needs to be in the lead (especially the first para) - I found this a bit confusing
• "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April and was broken up for scrap." - ditto: this doesn't seem important enough to include in the lead of this article
• "Another ship, Sultan Osman I, originally ordered by Brazil but being fitted out for the Ottomans, was also seized" - also a bit confusing here (and not mentioned again in the body of the article - I'd suggest moving this material from the lead into the body, and possibly augmenting)
  • I've cut everything on the other ships out of the lede.
• "A proposal by the British government to compensate the Ottomans for the loss of their battleships was ignored" - it's not clear who ignored the proposal: did one part of the British government make this proposal (can you say which part?), and another ignore it?
  • I've never seen any other info on this, so I'm deleting it.
• Should the role which the British seizure of the ships had in bringing the Ottoman Empire be noted? (though I think historians tend to now regard this as being marginal at best)
  • Added a paragraph on the effects of the seizure on the Turks.
    • The statement in the lead that "There is no evidence that the seizure played any part in causing the Ottoman government to declare war on Britain and the Entente Cordiale." doesn't seem to be directly referenced later in the article (though I think it's correct). Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • None of my sources explicitly say that. So I laid out the whole Ottoman road to war so readers can judge for themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• How was a crew so quickly found for the ship? - presumably they were very competent given that they were conducting operational patrols a few weeks later. Did they have any problems using a ship customised for Turkish sailors? (dials in the wrong language, unusual accommodation, etc?)
  • Based on some comments by Jellicoe on the other seized ships, I'm pretty sure that she was still effectively working up for most of the autumn. Annoyingly, Jellicoe really doesn't mention Erin in any significant detail.
    • Fair enough. I take it Hough doesn't cover this? Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Right, he focuses on Agincourt and doesn't discuss Erin much. Jellicoe says ..."on the evening of September 17th, the Erin, a new battleship bought, incomplete, from Turkey, being in company for the first time in order to accustom her officers to working the ship with the Fleet." Which I'd interpret as working up still, but that's my inference and I haven't found anything that says when he thought Erin was combat ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• The summary of Erin's career doesn't actually have much material on the ship. While this isn't surprising given that she was just one of many battleships in the fleet, can you add when she underwent periods of major servicing and any other incidents which affected the ship and her crew?
  • Her wartime history is very poorly documented outside the archives and I've added everything that I can find about her activities. If I hadn't been pointed to Jellicoe and the Navy Lists, there's no way that I'd be able to even pretend to satisfy the completeness criteria.
• There's almost nothing about what did the ship did in 1917.
• Regarding 1918, am I right in remembering that the Grand Fleet's battleship squadrons took turns escorting convoys to Norway, which presumably got Erin out of port.
  • Some of them did, but they're only mentioned in the published sources in conjunction with German movements towards Norway, so I cannot determine if she participated or not.
• Given that Erin was designed to be as good as any other battleship in the world, why was she so swiftly relegated to second tier status and then disposed of after World War I? Is it because tbe delays to her construction meant she was nothing special or worse by the time she entered service, and she'd been made well and truly outmoded by subsequent designs such as the Queen Elizabeth class and/or was an orphan? Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably the latter two reasons, but nobody actually goes into the reasons why

Thunderer became a training ship rather than Erin. See if the changes that I've made are satisfactory. And thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, the images seem rather crammed, perhaps align some of them left, wherever it makes sense? FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't want to play ping-pong with the reader's eyes, so I aligned everything to the right.
• Some of the footnotes do not have citations.
  • They're not things that need citations. Looking forward to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with note 2, but not note 4, where you mention a specific source, without actually citing it formally. I see no reason why it doens't contain a citation to the source discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What, a cite to Jellicoe's whole book? Seems kinda redundant to me.

Of course not, but for example the page number of the most prominent or first usage of this ship's name used in that way would make it verifiable. Citations are rarely redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Reşad V[2][10][11] in honour of Mehmed V" What is the correlation between these very different names? What does the word "Reşad" (and Reşadiye) itself mean?
  • They're variants of one of Mehmed V's names.

To prevent ambiguity, why not spell out the name "Mehmed V. Reşâd " then? The reader has no idea without clicking the article (which should be avoided, per "don't make the reader chase links"). FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• "The First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to detain the ships" Why?
• Expanded.
• "was too far away participate" Missing word, it seems.
  • Indeed
• "as they fell back upon on the main body" Not sure what this means. And is "upon on" not redundant?
  • Extra word, I think
• I think you could name and link the Battle of Jutland in the caption of the relevant map.
  • Added a header and main link to clarify what the map's for.
• "Admiralty" is linked at last, instead of first, mention in the article.
• "flagship" should be linked outside the intro as well.
• The intro seems a bit short compared to the article body, there are plenty of interesting details it could cover. In addition to more background info (the seizure of the ship was a reason for Turkey joining the Germans in WW2?), there should be some description of the ship, as the intro is supposed to summarise the entire article.
  • I've added a little bit about the seizure and its consequences to the lede. I see no reason to add technical details there as they'd be redundant to both the main body and the infobox. It's impossible to summarize them in any useful manner; you can only give selected parts which seems pointless to me.
• Thanks for your review. I've made some significant changes that I hope are satisfactory--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The added info gives nice context, I've made two replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Both added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - despite the lack of action, quite interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

This is looking good. A few comments from me:

• in the lead, suggest "the inconclusive Action of 19 August the same year"
• the length conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
• suggest "Erin was powered by two pairs of" as a set could be any number
• what aircraft were the flying-off platforms for?
  • Probably a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter, but that's only sourced for the battlecruisers and I don't know if the battleships were allocated anything different.
• the "distant cover" for a convoy crossing the Atlantic seems weird. Perhaps this was more of a distraction/demonstration?
  • Probably not given the difficulties the Germans had in tracking British fleet movements. I think that they were simply prepared to intercept any attempt to interfere with the convoy.
• drop the comma from "Reports of submarines in Scapa Flow,"
  • Indeed.
• was the fleet dispersed (meaning "distribute or spread over a wide area") or relocated?
  • IIRC, one squadron didn't go to Lough Swilly, but none of the battleships remained in Scapa Flow, so either term works, IMO.
• I think you could link Battle of Jutland in the body for the benefit of readers

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • All my comments have been addressed. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Parsecboy

• I reviewed this article for A-class and my concerns were addressed there. There are a couple of dupe links that have crept into the article since then, though. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Self-induced even.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced (eg yard number, order date); others differ between infobox and text (eg spelling of original name)
  • Good catch on the yard number and order date. There are multiple ways to transliterate the Turkish, but I've standardized on one.
• FN19: IA should use |via=; the rest should be the original citation details. Same with other similar refs
  • So via=Internet Archive?
    • Yep. Think about it as you're citing the original source, and then throwing that in afterwards. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• What makes Dreadnought Project a high-quality reliable source?
  • Not just anyone can edit it and one of its editor proprietors is a published naval historian
    • Who can edit? What sort of oversight is there? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You have to be approved to edit, and I imagine that your edits are reviewed. Most of their material is sourced to original documents, but that's not really an issue because they focus on the technical aspects of the ships rather than the whole enchilada like we do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Generally author honorifics like Dr aren't included in citations
• There appear to be some details in this source not currently covered
  • Those are more appropriate for the class article, IMO.
• The Halpern ISBN appears to be for a different edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 [2].

---

John Adams

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

John Adams was an American Founding Father who served as the second President of the United States. When I previously nominated this article in July, most people seemed concerned about the length of the article. The article was failed after only five days, so I didn’t have much time to address these concerns. I now believe I have done so. The article has gone from 190,336 characters at the beginning of the last review to 172,937 now, a decrease of 9.14%. The total size of the article is 99 kB, which is considered within the guidelines of “readable prose size” according to WP:SIZERULE. Especially considering how important Adams is, I do not see how any further reasonable objections can be made to the size of the article, and hope that it will pass this time, as there do not seem to be any other major issues. Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not yet expressing an opinion on whether the article is too long (I haven't read it), but I thought a comparison with some other very large FAs might be useful. For the top five on this page, the page size script gives word counts of 12K, 16K, 13K, 10K, and 11K. The largest is Hillary Clinton, with 16,016 words, but the promoted version was only 12,411 words. John Adams clocks in at 16,160 words. It seems probable that this would be the largest FA at promotion by word count. The next five on the list were (at promotion) also much smaller, though a couple have ballooned since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, but there are a few points I would like to make. The Clinton article became an FA in 2014. She's done plenty of notable things since then, which inevitably caused the article to grow in size. Adams is long dead, and with no major biographies or other studies of him in the works, it seems unlikely that there will be any major attempt to balloon the size of his biography at all. I would also like to point out that Ulysses S. Grant currently has 16,504 words, more than this article by more than a few hundred, although it was only 13,541 at the time of promotion in 2015. Byzantine Empire is even larger at 16,637 words. It became an FA in 2004, when the ideal word count was obviously nowhere near our current standards, but it's survived two FARs, most recently in 2012. My central point is that while this might set a new record for longest article at the time of promotion, it would not be the longest featured article overall. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, just a quick update: The article is now down to 97 kB and has less than 16,000 words. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Another update on length: at the time of its promotion, Andrew Jackson had 15,937 words. This article has 15,809 words. We can now say with certainty that it should it pass the review, this article would not be the longest FA at the time of promotion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead, 1a:

• I'm being picky. Pity to go along with this fiction that leaders "serve" the population. Um ... too much of a stretch for me. So I'd personally prefer "who became the first". You know that the Queen is described as having a lifetime of "public service". Don't make me laugh.

"Public service, "served in office," etc. are all common phrases that everyone understands. I don't see how there are any reasonable grouns for this objection. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." Also picky: makes it sound like he was a diarist with his wife, whereas you mean just "correspondent" with her, right?

I think the meaning is pretty clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not working, unless you mean they sat together and wrote his diary. Tony (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Another user just changed this. Is it any better? Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams collaborated with his cousin"—what, in writing his diary?

This part is rather vague and isn't closely supported by the main text. Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "and successfully defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre in court"—"and successfully defended in court the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre"? Over to you. Rest of that paragraph: good.

Done. Added "perpetrating" after of. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• You need to trim out "also" from your writing. (Audit MAFIA ... moreover, also, furthermore, in addition). "Adams' credentials as a revolutionary secured him two terms as George Washington's vice president and also his own election in 1796 as president." Consider comma before "and" ... I'm not sure. Then: "During his single term, he encountered"—can the single term be relocated into the previous proposition? I had to pause and think momentarily, having seen three terms flash past.

I could only find one instance of any of these worth trimming out. Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then. I don't know what three terms you're thinking of and I think it's pretty clear that the article means his single term as president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then."—I don't know where that idea came from. Please revise your take on comma usage—it's more complicated and nuanced than that. On "also" (there are 21 of them, and only a few are needed): what is it adding to this: "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." And here: "Ferling also surmises that ...". And here: "In 1771, Adams moved his family to Braintree, but kept his office in Boston. He also noted on the day of the family's move, ...". If you like, I'll add "also" to almost every sentence. Let me know and I'll do it. Tony (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, this article here says that commas should be used to separate two INDEPENDENT clauses. The second clause in the sentence you quoted is a dependent clause. A comma would not be needed there. I removed 11 more instances of also. Display name 99 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must inform you that that's an amateurish writing guide. Full of simplistic advice. Tony (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• CMOS says "that" unless there's a comma before it: "a correspondence which lasted fourteen years".

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Modern historians have favorably ranked his administration."—sounds very numerical/tabular. Do they all indulge in this?

Changed to show that the rankings do not include all historians. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks promising. Tony (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, thank you for your review. Please see my above comments. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, I don't think we're going to agree on the comma. Are there any other comments you wish to make about this article? Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to go beyond that amateurish online guide for comma usage.

You have yet to provide any justification for how the guide is "amateurish." And as you haven't produced a supposedly better guide which supports your own position instead of mine, I feel no urgency to change the article here. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Career before the Revolution":

• "rights to only be taxed by consent"—"only by" would be less clunky.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Causality needs to be clearer (IF I'm understanding it correctly): "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts, which operated without a jury, were corrupt and unfair." Do you mean: "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts were corrupt and unfair because they operated without a jury."? Whether causal or not, it should be clear.

Your version is better. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "relations with Britain temporarily eased"—can a relationship ease? Or "tensions ... eased"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "known locally as the "White House.""—tsk: MOS breach.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "the family" ... "They" ... "He and Abigail and the children" ... "they". Check there's not a more efficient way—unsure.

I've changed this around a bit. Please take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a lone British sentry was accosted by American men and boys."—sounds vaguely sexual. Do we need to make the distinction? And since in those days women hardly ever accosted anyone, can they be characterised as "civilians", without gendering them?

Changed to "mob of citizens." Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The following day, Adams was asked to defend them after others had refused, and he immediately agreed to do so." Simpler and shorter? "The following day, after others had refused to defend them, Adams agreed to do so." Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, the review is still incomplete. Do you want to finish it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Strong Support – There have been few structural changes made recently, but the fact that there have been any at all may cause the article to fail the Stable criteria. The article is definitely well researched as is and well written, and it already is a GA, so I could see this nom successfully going through. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, I fail to see how the structural changes can be seen as the result of anything but the standard process of getting this article reading for featured article candidacy. There's no ongoing edit war, and the stability criteria only mandates that "its content...not change significantly from day to day." You even admit that the changes are not significant, so I have to wonder if you even read the FA criteria and if so, how closely. If you have misgivings about this article because some changes were recently made in order to get it ready for the FA process, I don't see how you would not have the same objections for virtually every article that comes on here. I do however thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Vote changed from Weak to Strong. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be cited, such as the exact end date of his ambassadorships

These are largely discussed in the main text. I've encountered other FAs in which the EXACT dates in the infobox aren't directly cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the text says eg. just "1788" for the ambassadorship end, rather than giving the exact date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Source added for ambassadorship dates. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fn14 is incomplete

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Now FN15, looking at the original there appears to be a publication name not currently included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Right now, the only untemplated citation under References is 286. There is no author (it was written by an organization), so I wasn't sure how to put it in the Bibliography. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the GBooks link, there appears to be an author named on the title page? It also looks like some citations are partially templated and partially not, eg. 28, or not at all, eg. 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that. Added. I also properly templated those two citations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• FN34 and 27 are the same

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• FN39 is incomplete

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• FN43 is broken

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Might've missed a couple, eg. FN157. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I took care of one. I looked through again and haven't found any others. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include publisher locations

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Still seeing some inconsistencies here. For example, 126 has a location, 227 does not, 310 does not but other books do, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• FN147 date format doesn't match other sources

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• What makes Leip a high-quality reliable source?

Replaced chart with electoral map. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• FN225 should cite the NHHC

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Forbes is a publication, Library of Congress is a publisher - check italics throughout

I'm a little bit confused about what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This is typically to do with which parameter is used for which data, although it appears in some cases you've actually added italics to an instance of |publisher=. Organizations like LOC should use |publisher= and shouldn't be displayed in italics, whereas publications like Forbes should use |work= or a related parameter (|website=, |newspaper=, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I added italics for Forbes and removed it from Library of Congress, as well as from publishers in a few other sources where it didn't seem needed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Still some inconsistencies here - channels are not publications (though programs are), website names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I added italics to a website but I'm still a bit confused here. PBS is a channel but isn't it technically a program as well? Should it be italicized? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a program called PBS NewsHour, but I don't see one just called "PBS" at List_of_programs_broadcast_by_PBS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Italics removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• FN276 seems to indicate Reagan was 89 at the time, not over 90

Replaced source. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The new source supports that Reagan reached age 90, but not that he surpassed 90 years 247 days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed that part of the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• FN320 doesn't link to anything

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how book editors are formatted

I think I've fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Compare Foot and Hogan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a few unabbreviated under References. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why the double publisher in McDonald 1974?

This was a mistake. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Several of the entries under Primary sources appear incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I've done a little work on this. Will continue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is taken care of now. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a few still incomplete, eg. Richardson. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think it's finished now. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your thorough review. I have addressed most of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've responded further to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Given how many changes have been made by both the nominator and others in the last week, I think that exemplifies the fact that this article isn't done. It needs further review by WP's best editors before becoming a featured article. I still support the nomination, as stated in my previous vote, but the nom needs to be extended. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I already explained that your objection to how frequently the article has been edited recently did not make sense. You didn't defend it. Instead, you seem to have just reiterated it. And for what purpose? It doesn't add anything to the review process and the criticisms are completely illegitimate. Most of the changes in the past week were made in response to the FA review. I'm not sure how much experience you have here, but the way the review process works is, editors suggest changes. Then, the changes are discussed and made. Of course the article isn't done; it's still on review, and it won't be done until one of the coordinators either promotes it or closes the nomination. I welcome any further constructive suggestions that you may have, but I also don't understand what comments like this are meant to accomplish. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Which means Redditaddict69 thinks it was a premature nomination. I agree. You've asked me to go through the rest; but I've done far more than FAC should have to in sifting through prose issues. Please find one or two other editors to assist. Tony (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, I disagree with that assessment. I've seen and been involved with FACs that have undergone prose evaluations similar to this one. I've also seen and been involved with reviews where a considerable amount of content was either added or subtracted from the article during the review itself. That hasn't happened yet. Like Redditaddict69, you express misgivings but haven't quite clearly stated what the remaining problems are in the article. If it's about the comma, I suggest you either get over it or find a guide better than the one I cited to prove me wrong. Otherwise I simply want to know what the outstanding issues are. I remind you that I have implemented the vast majority of your suggestions. I think the prose in the article were good to begin with and that most of your suggestions simply made them better and more concise. I can't see why you can't continue to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose—prose quality is inadequate. Tony (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, Can you provide any specific suggestions to help in the continued review? As they say, the devil is in the details. Hoppyh (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a good way to reduce whitespace on the right side of the Notes section? Perhaps you could merge it and References into one section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, sorry for the late response. I think it depends on your computer view because on mine I don't see any white space. I'm against merging it with the References section just because I feel that having a separate notes section makes the notes easier to find than if they're mixed up in a bunch of citations. I don't know that much about formatting so I'm afraid there don't seem to be any remaining options as far as I can tell. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69

• After reading several times... here are my initial observations:

Many sentences could be split into two to help with the flow. Equally as many sentences can be combined into one. This will help the article meet the requirements of being a very-well written article.

Can you give a few examples? Right now it's hard to know which sentences you think should be combined or stay together or which ones you think should be split. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Subsections with further information pages could be shortened, others can be expanded. Someone coming to read about John Adams probably doesn't want 7 paragraphs on his election when they can just click on the separate article for it. Furthermore, they may want more than 3 paragraphs of info on his later years, after the presidency.

The section on the election of 1796 has four paragraphs. The section on the election of 1800 (one of the most turbulent presidential elections in history) has five paragraphs. Furthermore, there are a total of 11 paragraphs discussing Adams' post-presidency, including his correspondence with Jefferson, political commentary, family life, etc. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: While it was a very highly contested election, not everyone wanting to read about Adams will want to see that. They may only want to see a brief summary, or only the info that he was directly involved in. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, I'm checking this review page every couple of hours so you don't have to ping me. And you certainly don't have to do so four times. Anyway, to the point, biographies have to include a certain amount of context and background or else nothing will make sense. Insisting that everything not relating directly to Adams be taken out would be in extremely poor judgment. All FA biographies have context and background information. They have to. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I notice that some sections are out of order. Last years and death should probably come before Legacy. This is just an opinion, and if people disagree, that's fine.

It does come before Legacy. You may have glanced at the article several times but it's clear from this comment and the one before it that you didn't look too closely. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I meant as in the section directly after should be where it is located. I'm busy now so I'll reply to your other replies later, but I do think that Legacy should come directly after later years and death. That would look much more organized. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Legacy section is meant to sum up how the individual has been viewed after they died. Therefore, it would make sense to discuss that only after discussing all of the things they did and said before they died. It's done that way in literally every biography I've seen. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

People said that this was a premature nomination but I think it can be saved. After the changes are made and they slow down to just a few dozen or so a week (at most), then would be a good time for a close.

I'm glad you think that the article can pass, but this is now the third time you've advanced the idea that frequent changes in themselves are enough to derail a nomination. I've refuted it twice. You haven't bothered to defend it. You just keep repeating it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I only reiterated it once I saw that not many changes were being made anymore. If changes are still being made, that is usually a good sign (from what I understand) that the article is still undergoing edits before becoming a featured article. A successful candidate for FA does not have many changes being made (as it was about a week ago), but it's slowed down – because of that, I am arguing for the article being passed. Few editors seem to be requesting and/or making more changes as of now. I don't think I made that clear before. Even though it's not a requirement for FA, that's a consensus I've seen that many may agree with. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You reiterated it twice. Frequent edits are generally only a problem if there's an edit war. This is never an issue that I've seen come up at FA nominations and I don't see why you're so worry about it. FA nominations aren't determined based on how many editors request or make changes but whether the changes that are recommended are made and whether there is consensus for the nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is good (that's why it's a good article), but I don't think it's great (hence, why it isn't featured).

Last thing: While this is on the "readable" size guidelines at 99kb, that's still a bit much when so much content can be merged to separate articles that already exist. Anything that isn't crucial info should likely be moved.

I've made a little more progress today. It's down to 98 kB. I've gotten rid of so much content already since the last time this was nominated that future cuts will be difficult. But I'll try. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: And I think, to make it shorter, anything that doesn't directly relate to him that can also be moved to an existing article could be done. As I stated before, the election section is quite long. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I addressed your concern about material not directly relating to Adams above. The article is now down to 97 kB. There are fewer than 16,000 words. I'm tired of shortening just for the sake of shortening and I don't think it's necessary any more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks–looks much better now. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more specific details about what you want to see fixed. This is a step up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Humphrey Ploughjogger’s initial seven essays could use a brief description of the topic raised, as well as the reason for the use of the pen name. Hoppyh (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I briefly expanded on their discussion in the article. They're discussed in two places: one for 1763, when they first started, and again after 1765, when Adams started them up again to oppose the Stamp Act. We have a handful of sentences in there about them right now which I think is enough. Thanks for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Proposed split of "Later years and death" (see Jefferson Davis for example) – Move the paragraph on death to a section directly before Legacy. Later years will remain where it is. This will help the timeline of the article and address one of my previous concerns. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Or, as an alternative, move the entirety of the Retirement section to directly before Legacy. Why should political writings come after retirement? Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these suggestions work for me. For biographies of individuals who have done extensive writing on politics, philosophy, etc., it's common practice (and I think a good practice) to cover their chronological life first, which of course includes death, before discussing their theories. Analysis of writings interrupt the chronological flow of the articles and so it's good to save those from last. The chronological events in Adams' life should remain together. This is how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are written. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. I gave the Jefferson Davis article as an example because that is a Featured Article already, but nothing there applies here. I guess that makes me satisfied with the way it currently is. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, yes, I'd consider the Davis article more of an anomaly. I looked at other FAs on US Presidents (Jackson-written by me-, Polk, Johnson, and Grant) and they all do it the same way as this article. I'm glad to know you're satisfied with everything. That said, do you still consider your support "weak" or is it stronger now? If any other concerns come up please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely stronger. Seems that almost all problems have been taken care of (I don't see any more, nor does anyone else, because none have really come up). Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Redditaddict69. Since you said right above that your support was stronger now, would you mind striking "weak" from your vote up above, just so that the coordinators now that you feel more comfortable now than you did then with this article being promoted? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt

• "Adams was a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress, and became a principal in the decision for independence." I might say "leader" for "principal"

I added leader after principle. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• " As a diplomat in Europe, he helped negotiate the peace treaty with Great Britain and acquired vital governmental loans." I might say "secured" rather than "acquired".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams' early education included incidences of truancy, a dislike for his master, and a desire to become a farmer." Should "incidences" be "incidents"?

Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Deacon Adams hired a new school master" I would render the end "schoolmaster" or perhaps better, "teacher".

Substituted "schoolmaster." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "as his contemporaries largely spectated or joined the war for money. " I would avoid "spectated" and would simplify "as many of his contemporaries joined the war to earn money" (if the source supports this). It's not necessary to state the converse. The reader gets that not everyone went to war.

Removed "spectated." The source says that many people signed up for large cash or land bounties, so I kept the part about money. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• " recognizing that he was the first of his family to "[degenerate] from the virtues of the house so far as not to have been an officer in the militia."[13]" maybe the first word "regretting" instead of what you have.

I have to differ here. While Adams does seem a bit troubled by the fact that he never served in the military, he did not, to my knowledge, ever state that he would do things over again if he could, which is sort of what's implied by the word "regret." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "and was soon admitted to the Massachusetts bar," Was there such a thing at that time, or was he admitted to practice by his local court that would be accepted by other courts? If the latter, I would strike "Massachusetts".

Removed "Massachusetts." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Susanna died after about a year,[24] " I think better to say "Susanna died at about age 1"

Replaced by saying that she died at one year old. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion of the Stamp Act and trial by jury seems very muddled. First you mention that Adams favored trial by jury, but you haven't mentioned the provisions of the Stamp Act that are relevant. Then you come back with a fuller exposition somewhat later.

I moved it up to the opening section. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams, among the more conservative of the Founders," this conclusion is interesting given we are discussing the 1770s and Adams was not considered conservative on independence. I think there might be ambiguity between conservative in outlook and conservative in politics. I might throw "in viewpoint" or some such after "conservative".

Added "had been" to indicate past tense. Basically, Adams refused to get involved in mob violence and street protests in the 1760s despite being pressured by Sam Adams. He preferred to articulate his objections in newspapers and through petitions. I added more information to make this more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• "His ideas began to change around 1772, as the British Crown assumed payment of the salaries of Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson and his judges instead of the Massachusetts legislature.[45]" I would cut one of the Massachusettses and clarify why this concerned Adams.

Done. More detail added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Two consecutive subsections, those dealing with the Boston Massacre and Tea Perty, tell of Adams moving his family/office etc. I cannot tell if these periods overlap or not behind such words as "later". Consider consolidation.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1774 came the Intolerable Acts, which singled out Massachusetts for punishment for previous insurrection and attempted to ensure colonial obedience. Additional customs revenue from these acts were used by the Crown to pay colonial government wages." I think the passive voice unnecessary in the first sentence. Start with something like "In response to the Tea Party and other unrest, Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts ..." In the second, was there actually additional customs revenue? Also watch the POV, this is starting to sound like my super-patriotic seventh grade history textbook.

Passive voice removed. The revenue issue seems to have been conflated with the question over salaries This paragraph has been removed. I think the recent changes may have reduced some POV, but if you find any evidence of that remaining please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• "to proclaim their objections." I don't like "proclaim" much. Maybe "to explain their objections in a pamphlet (or whatever it was)"

Replaced with "articulate." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1775, in response to a set of essays" For reasons of length and the subject of this paragraph's relative obscurity, I would consider either omitting or cutting back this paragraph.

The paragraph has been deleted. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt, do you think you'd be able to continue with the review? I'm sorry about some of the errors that were in this section. For some reason, I didn't make as many changes to the pre-Revolutionary War parts of this article as I did to the rest of it. I think that once we reach discussions of Adams's service in the Second Continental Congress, as a diplomat, and as president, things will look a lot more like FA quality. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Objections to British Parliamentary authority" this seems wordy and the reader may be unsure what the contents are from the title. How about "Becoming a rebel" or "Becoming a revolutionary"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams agreed to attend,[49] despite an emotional plea from his friend Jonathan Sewall to do otherwise." The last three words are unneeded or can be condensed to "not to"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• At the First Continental Congress, was Adams placed on the lead committee, that charged with drafting a statement of colonial rights, or some other committee, and why? Did he form alliances with other delegates?

The article already mentions the committees he was on, including the Committee of Five, which drafted the declaration. As for alliances, Smith and McCullough say little on the matter aside from what is already discussed. Initially, I imagine the answer was no. As the article states, in the early days of the Second Congress, few people outside New England truly wanted independence, and Adams was the most radical of all the Massachusetts delegates. He eventually had to do so when it came time to declare independence, something the article makes clear. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the First Continental Congress, which had a more limited purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I missed "First." More information added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Although the Massachusetts delegation was largely passive, Adams felt strongly that the conservatives of 1774 (such as Joseph Galloway and James Duane) were no different than loyalists like Hutchinson and Peter Oliver, and he denigrated them, although his views at the time did align with those of conservative John Dickinson." This sentence really needs to get down to cases. It's probably true but may not illuminate the reader much.

I've made it a little more specific-basically stating that they believed that the Americans should remain loyal to the British or continue to compromise and conciliate as much as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to know Adams' reaction to Lexington and Concord. In fact, talk of Adams' views at this stage should probably precede the discussion of his tactics at the Second Continental Congress.

Agreed. I added a brief discussion of his views on Lexington and Concord. I think his views on other matters are made clear as the events are discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent with the capitalization of Loyalists and its link is not on first use. Also inconsistent on "Colonists".

I think I've fixed this. The former should be capital and the latter shouldn't be. Loyalists is now linked on first use. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "then-assembled " no need for the hyphen.

Yeah, sorry I didn't catch that. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "He drafted the preamble to the Lee resolution of colleague Richard Henry Lee that spring, which called on the colonies to adopt new independent governments.[65] On June 7, 1776, Adams seconded the resolution, which stated, "These colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states."[66]" I would merge into one sentence by losing the description. The resolution speaks for itself.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Did Adams choose the Declaration Committee? Our article doesn't say that.

First sentence of the second paragraph under "Independence:" "Prior to independence being declared, Adams organized a Committee of Five charged with drafting a Declaration of Independence." Added "and selected" after organized. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Some of these long paragraphs could be split.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "debate was held in Congress as to whether to approve the declaration." Maybe "the resolution was debated in Congress".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• ""Benjamin Harrison V" I might cut the V.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Who offered Adams the position as commissioner? The Congress? What were the motivations involved in the offer and acceptance?

More information added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "imposed order and methods needed by his" I might substitute "managed"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "but wrote infrequently to Abigail, only about once every ten days.[95]" I don't see why this is infrequently, when the letters would take weeks to months to reach their destination.

Ferling describes it as such, but I doubt all would agree, and I see what you mean. Changed accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The Dutch, fearing British retaliation, refused to meet Adams; after discovering of secret aid the Dutch had already sent to the Americans, the British authorized reprisals against their ships, which only increased their apprehension" "Discovering of" could be improved, but in general this sentence seems out of order and a bit disjointed. After all, these events had already happened before the refusal to meet Adams.

I tweaked it a little bit. Please take a look. I think it's placement is correct because it provides the appropriate background and context for why the Dutch were hesitant to listen to Adams. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Was Adams an ambassador or a minister? And was the government to which he was credentialed in Amsterdam or The Hague?

Originally he was neither, something I made note of. He stayed at Amsterdam but the government was at the Hague, something I made more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you will see things like "Adams was ambassador" in sources, but they may be using it loosely (anachronistically). I was researching a later US diplomat a while back, and I think technically the United States sent no ambassadors before the late-1800s (they were all headed by 'ministers plenipotentiary'). See also, Diplomatic rank which is not a great article but generally, it is what I found. Basically, republics did not send "ambassadors" only monarchies did, at the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The article says that he was named minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain during the war. The sources explicitly use that language, but for his later diplomatic assignments they don't, and simply use the word "ambassador" or something similar. If Adams represented his country in a formal diplomatic capacity, the sources say ambassador, and no better word can be proposed, I think it's best to leave things the way they are. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• "in effort to seek recognition from Russia," probably should be an "an" before "effort".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "News of the American triumph at Yorktown convulsed Europe. In January 1781, after recovering, Adams arrived at The Hague to demand that the States General of the Netherlands answer his petitions." Should the date mentioned be 1782?

Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• You seem very reticent about who is ordering Adams about, from the United States. You generally use the passive voice. Some mention of who's doing this might be in order.

At first he had no official status, and even after that most things that he did were at his own initiative. But overall, can you be a little more specific by pointing out the exact areas which you think ought to be revised? I'm not sure how to respond to this right now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams insisted that not only should American fishermen be allowed to travel as close to shore as desired, but that they should be allowed to cure their ships on the shores off Newfoundland.[107] " Should "ships" be "fish"? And "off" might be "of".

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams mentioned to the British that his proposed fishing terms were more generous than those offered by French in 1778," "French" should either be "France" or preceded by "the".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Following the treaty, Adams was an architect of extensive trade relations between the United States and Prussia.[111]" I don't see the point in one sentence on this. If it is significant, say more, if it is not, say nothing. As it is, "an architect of extensive trade relations" seems a bit vague.

McCullough and Ferling don't address this. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• The account of Adams becoming VP comes in rather in the middle. Was he a candidate?

Yes, I should have done better here. I added some background information so that the reader has more context for how he got elected. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "As vice president, Adams largely sided with the Federalist Party." Can we really say there was a Federalist Party until quite late in Adams' VP ship?

After with, added "the Washington administration and the emerging." that should take care of it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• The description of Hamilton's proposal should probably pipe somewhere to Funding Act of 1790.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams played a minor role in the politics as vice president. He attended few cabinet meetings, and the President sought his counsel infrequently.[126] " I would cut "the" before politics. As for the cabinet, there was no expectation that Adams attend, and wasn't for VPs until the 1950s. I'm concerned it makes him look slothful by modern standards.

First part done. As for the second, there was originally no expectation that he wouldn't attend either. It was up to Adams to set the precedent for how influential the VP would be within the confines of the Constitution. There are a number of reasons that historians propose for this, but the end result ended up being not very. As the article alludes to, some people think that the reason Adams had so little influence with Washington was related to the latter's displeasure over the former's handling of the issue over titles. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "John Adams predicted in a letter to Abigail that passage would deeply divide the nation.[146]" I might say "ratification" rather than "passage".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "As president, Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[170]" I might move this to the end of the previous paragraph.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "In Europe, Britain and France were at war as a result of the French Revolution. " That's a somewhat sweeping statement that I'm pretty sure historians dispute over.

The statement has to be brief in order to avoid getting into unnecessary detail. As for the second part of your statement, that's not true so far as I'm aware. Many European powers around France were disturbed by the Revolution. They either wanted to restore King Louis or take advantage of the chaos to augment their own power. France anticipated this and declared war. None of that would have happened if not for the Revolution. All that information can be found in the lead section of the French Revolutionary Wars article, and I didn't think it was all that controversial. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "the political and anti-religious radicalism of the French Revolution," of the revolution itself or of later aspects such as the Reign of Terror?

The revolution technically continued until the overthrow of the Directory in 1799. The Reign of Terror is therefore simply a stage in the revolution itself. Also, the sentence refers to the Federalists' perception of the Revolution, not the Revolution itself. Hamilton and a few others were already skeptical of it before the Reign of Terror. In 1789, Adams himself wrote, "The French Revolution will, I hope, produce effects in favor of liberty, equity, and humanity as extensive as this whole globe and as lasting as all time." (McCullough, 416) This is certainly an expression of optimism, but it isn't a rousing endorsement, suggesting he was already a little worried. He also worried that the single French legislature would produce "great and lasting calamities." (Ibid) Not long after he wrote letters to Richard Price and Sam Adams expressing concern and apprehension. Basically, leading Federalists such as Adams foresaw problems with the Revolution based on the manner in which it was conducted just about from the start. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Most Americans were still pro-French due to France's assistance during the Revolution, the perceived humiliation of the Jay Treaty, and their desire to support a republic against the British monarchy, and would not tolerate war with France.[174]" I might cut the "still".

There were plenty of reasons for them to have changed their support: The Reign of Terror, the behavior of Genet, peace and commercial alliance with Britain, the violation of American shipping rights, etc. This just emphasizes that despite all that, American support for France remained strong by the time Adams became president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, sorry for the minor delay. I got caught up in my academics. All of your comments so far have been addressed. Thank you for your time and patience. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for yours as I've been quite slow. I hope to get back to this tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[171]" I have no idea what the second part of the sentence means. And wasn't Adams needed in the capital? It might be explained.

He just grew tired of being in the capital and felt like he could easily conduct most business from Peacefield. The second part is meant to indicate that he ignored job petitioners who even in this age could annoy political leaders. I adjusted this. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Hamilton had grown accustomed to being heavily consulted by Washington." I might say "closely" for "heavily".

Substituted "regularly." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "In an attempt to quell the uprising," perhaps outcry for uprising

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• You are not consistent on the hyphenization of Quasi War

I noticed one usage without a hyphen and added one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if the back and forth regarding whether Washington would head the army could not be summarized more briefly?

Unfortunately I don't think so. It's rather complicated and I'm afraid of losing important details. The article has been considerably shortened by this point so I'm not worried about length. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• More dates in the Quasi War section might be useful. Also, Washington's advanced age seems to be 66.

I added dates for the Murray nomination and Adams' return to Trenton. I tried to find a source for the exact date of the infamous Hamilton meeting but neither Smith, Ferling, McCullough, or Chernow mention it. Chernow says that the location of the meeting is not known with certainty, and I suspect the same to be true of the date, although we do know that it happened between October 10 and October 15. I don't think that Washington's age is necessary to state specifically because anyone unsure and interested in finding out can easily look at his biography. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the nomination of Patrick Henry, our article on him says he declined the nomination. As written, the Adams article can be seen as saying Henry sailed for France as one of the commissioners in late 1799 (he died in June 1799). I might play around with that.

Thank you for catching this. Yes, Henry did decline the nomination by reasons of health. Adams replaced him with William Richardson Davie. I have modified the article accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• On May 5, Adams' frustrations with the Hamilton wing of the party exploded " 1799?

1800. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "which, with Washington now dead," Washington lived just over a month after the Coup of 18 Brumaire. Suggest this be cast in terms of word arriving of the coup.

News of the coup did not appear to reach the U.S. until the spring of 1800, by which time Washington was already dead, and the army was not disbanded until the summer. Added "News of this event" in order to account for the time gap. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "At the Convention of 1800," "By", not "At", as the convention is not a meeting but a treaty.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would pipe to the appropriate article on treaty reservations, a term you use, by the way, twice in four words. I'd rephrase a bit.

I couldn't find a link to the reservations so I don't think they have their own article. I did rephrase this content. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think names of acts, such as that for the seamen, should be in title case.

I thought about that, but the title of the article for that act isn't in title case, so wouldn't it just be best to leave it as it is? Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity (no action needed), do the biographers think Adams spread rumors in the 1800 election that Jefferson had died and so people might as well vote for Adams?

I saw that on a Drunk History episode. It may very well be true that people working for Adams, though probably not Adams specifically, did so, but I haven't encountered any mention of it in my readings. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Secretary of State John Marshall.[250] Marshall, " Marshall/Marshall

Replaced second instance with "He." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Adams signed his commission on January 31 and the Senate approved it immediately.[251]" The commission, to my knowledge, only comes once the Senate has confirmed (excepting a recess appointment which this does not seem to be).

The source (McCullough) uses this language, so I have decided against changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Done with presidency.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your continued work on the review. I've gotten up until here and should have everything completed within the next couple of days. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "The work had numerous gaps and was eventually abandoned and left unedited.[254] " I might cut the last three words. If it was abandoned, it follows it wasn't edited.

By that I mean that he never attempted to go over the parts that were written, so they don't flow very well. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "His frugal lifestyle left him with a considerable fortune by 1801." Four years of the presidential salary ($25K, I think?) had something to do with it? I see no harm in mentioning it if so.\

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "John Quincy resolved the crisis by purchasing from him his properties in Weymouth and Quincy, including Peacefield, for the sum of $12,800.[255] " I might omit "purchasing from him" instead "buying", and omit ", the sum of".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "angry at not receiving an appointment," maybe "angry at not being appointed to office"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, Lafayette visited Adams twice during the visit, though the second was in 1825.

I believe you are mistaken. I checked four biographies-Morse, Smith, Ferling, and McCulloch. Morse and Ferling don't mention a meeting between Adams and Lafayette occurring at any time at all around this period. Smith and McCullough both describe the 1824 meeting in considerable detail but make absolutely no mention of an 1825 meeting. I can therefore only assume based off of that alone it did not take place. Also, our biography of Lafayette only mentions one meeting with Adams, and says that he spent 1825 touring the southern and western United States. So a meeting in Massachusetts wouldn't really make sense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Thoughts on Government was referenced as an authority in every state-constitution writing hall." I gather what is meant, but it is phrased obscurely.

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After returning from his first mission to France," a year, here, would be helpful.

Added Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "that would provide free schooling for three years to all citizens.[290]" I assume this applied only to children?

Added that it was for the children of all citizens. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• In the religion section, I'm puzzled by your present v. past tense rationales. The sources mentioned that are dated are present tense, but Holmes is in past tense even though more recent than any of the dated sources.

Changed to present tense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• "He criticizes him for his "pettiness...jealousy, and vanity,"" I think an ellipsis should have spaces

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• In the final paragraph of Legacy, you introduce the McCullough biography but you refer to him in the previous paragraph. I might adjust this.

I don't see a problem here. The first quote isn't taken from the McCullough biography. It's from an interview. Its purpose is to show how Americans through the centuries have viewed Adams, and how he often did not occupy the same place of high honor as other Founders. That's especially true of before the McCullough biography and the miniseries adaptation, both of which have made him far more popular. Because of the post-McCullough shift I think it's appropriate to include the McCullough quote where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've responded to all of your comments thus far. Your review was very thorough and helpful. It's always nice to hear from people who know the content and can make good suggestions. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support The prose is a little stodgy at times, but it's passable. Everything else seems to be in order and squares with what I know of the subject. Note: due to pressure of time and the length of the article, I've only spot-reread.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Wehwalt. If you had time I'd appreciate knowing where you think the prose can be improved. If not, no worries and I'll do my best to fix it, hopefully with the help of some other reviewers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As you know, I have no objections to polite critiques of my writing style. :) Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Maile66

• Support - with perhaps different reasons than all above. I began reading the article several weeks ago, taking note of the changes as this review went along. I have now finished reading the article, and am giving my basis for support here. I am, and always have been, fascinated by John Adams. Enough so, that when David McCullough's 600-plus-pages bio on him came out, I spent a month or so devouring it all, and was bored with none of it. Adams was such a vital linchpin in this nation that who knows if we would have our current form of government had he not been part of the foundation. That said, I perhaps used a different criteria than you all are using.

The FAC process is important, if for no other reason, than that it really is an encyclopedia used as reference material. Unverifiable as to whether or not the public really takes a long article and reads it all the way through. Not a week goes by that I don't see several talking heads on TV say, " ... according to Wikipedia ... " and we want them to have correct information when they check us. This was not a quick read, nor should it be. It conveyed to me the accurate story of the life of John Adams, and why he is important to this country. It has a clear chronological flow. Events, time periods, and individuals are explained clearly enough for the first-time reader of the subject. And maybe most importantly - I will not be embarrassed if my favorite talking head on TV blurts out, "According to Wikipedia, John Adams ... "

As a side note, Display name 99, I adapted your style on Bibliography of John Adams as a basic style for how I eventually created Bibliography of Kalākaua and Bibliography of Liliʻuokalani. Those two had slightly different needs, but I thought you'd like to know the style you used worked best for my own needs. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Maile66, thank you for your support and kind words. I originally came up with the bibliography style when writing Bibliography of Andrew Jackson, which is probably my best one. Yours overall seem more comprehensive and more detailed. Again, thanks! Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

I had intended a quick spotcheck of prose prior to promoting but pls note:

• Re. this edit and its summary, you should be avoiding seasonal terms for the simple reason that not everyone lives in the same hemisphere as you or your subject. See MOS:SEASON; if we don't have the exact month of the year in the source, then "early", "mid-", "late" or other terms should be used.
• I can see some duplinks that may be justifiable given the length of the article but pls review and rationalise as needed -- let me know if you'd like me to point you to a duplink checking script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, after reading that policy, I undid my revert. I accidentally undid another edit of yours but was able to rectify it. I'd appreciate you point out that script for me. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, no prob. Pls check elsewhere in the article for seasonal terms though -- there were several that needed replacing, not just the one I did myself. Re. the tool for highlighting duplinks, see here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I got rid of the four more that I was able to find. Display name 99 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ian Rose. Sorry for the delay, but I've removed two more duplicate links since I last commented here. I do think there is consensus for promotion, but as you may have noticed, two editors voiced concerns over the quality of the prose in the article. If you have any suggestions to make in that area prior to promotion, they would be appreciated. Otherwise, no worries. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I couldn't return to this sooner. Tks for all that -- there is one "fall of 1787" remaining that I'd ask you to change but I won't hold up promotion over it. As to the initial prose concerns, a good deal of work has taken place since and I consider them actioned as far as is reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018 [3].

---

Packers sweep

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s were one of the most dominant teams in the history of professional football. Under coach Vince Lombardi the Packers won five NFL Championships in seven years–including the first two Super Bowls. Thirteen Packers who played for Lombardi were later elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with Lombardi entering shortly after his death in 1970. Much of this success can be traced to the philosophy of Vince Lombardi: teamwork, hard work, and the pursuit of excellence. Nothing better exemplifies these traits than the Packers sweep: a power running play that Lombardi's Packers perfected.

As this is my first WP:FAC, I was cautious to make sure this article was properly reviewed before the nomination. The article was first reviewed during its DYK nomination and time on the Main Page. It was then reviewed by The Guild of Copyeditors before its subsequent GA review. Finally, it was reviewed by a WP:FAC mentor to make sure nothing else had been missed. Thank you to Sportsfan77777, Casliber, Twofingered Typist, The Rambling Man, and others for their assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article at WP:FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity

• "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play developed before its use by the Packers" Tenet means a belief or principle. I also think it needs to be reworded." How about "The Packers sweep is based on the sweep, a football play that involves a back taking a handoff and running parallel to the line of scrimmage before turning upfield behind lead blockers."

• Thanks Clikity, I made the suggested change here. Note I changed the "Packers sweep" that starts the next sentence to "The play" to avoid repeating "the Packers sweep" three times in a row. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Tony seems to have fixed the little issues with the prose. The citations and sources look good, so I think you're good to go when the image review ends. A good read. Clikity (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg: looks like the source link is dead - when and where was this image first published? Same with File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG
• File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg: can you say more about the source for this image and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have uploaded a new version of File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg using this version as the source. Note I archived it here and included that link on the Commons description page so that this issue does not happen again. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns.
• I replaced File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG with File:Taylor 1961 Topps.jpg. Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.
• File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg was created by me using Method Draw. Although I based the graphic on an image I found online, I have change the source on the description page to one that is more reliable and is included in the article that still is consistent with the diagram I created. I also believe that the article and numerous sources support the reliability of the diagram. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns. Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fine with the latter two - for the first, would still like to know publication date, don't see that at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, I will continue to search for said publication date, but as of now I have been unable to locate it. It appears to be from the same series of photos from other Packers (see File:Bart starr bw.jpg, for example). Not an expert on photos by any means, so any advice would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like it has been published elsewhere (eg) - these may have more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, the book you linked was published in 2017 and uses that picture as the e-book cover. My guess is that the author pulled that photo from the web, and most likely does not own a copyright on the photo. Have you found it anywhere else? All of my searching has come up empty. My best guess is that is was taken by Vernon Biever or a similar Packers photographer, but that is just a guess. Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959 to 1967, and he passed away in 1970. So we can reliably conclude that the range listed on the description page is correct. If we are unable to get the exact date or year, will the range suffice? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• The issue is not when the image was created, but when it was published, as that's what is typically used to determine copyright in the US. If you haven't yet, you could try a reverse image search? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I did try a reverse image search, among other things. Still no luck. Let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• In that case you may need to remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• It has been removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, note that I have added two photos to the article to replace the one I removed. They are File:Jerry Kramer Topps 1959.jpg and File:Fuzzy Thurston (1).jpg. They are Topps trading cards and similarly licensed as the two other photos in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a Support: well-written indeed.

• "He played football at Fordham University, on a football scholarship,[5] and was part of the "Seven Blocks of Granite", a nickname for the team's offensive line." Bumpy commas. Do we need the one after "University"?

• Removed the comma after "University". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "where he continued to develop a better understanding of the sweep, especially pulling offensive linemen and having the ball carriers cut-back towards openings in the line". Just a suggestion: "especially the techniques of"?

• Good suggestion, done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd dump the comma after "seasons", but wouldn't complain if you wanted to retain it. But the one after "West Point"? "Blaik's emphasis on players executing their job and the military discipline of West Point, greatly influenced Lombardi's future coaching style." Looks like an error that crept in when the -ing grammar was changed.

• Removed the comma after seasons and West Point. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Rather long sentence: "He positioned his lineman with greater space between each other,[9] had offensive tackles pull from the line and implemented an early variant of zone blocking (blockers are expected to block a "zone" instead of an individual defender), which required the ball carrier to run the football wherever there was space.[8]" Again, only a suggestion: "... defender); this required".

• Good suggestions. Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Under his offensive leadership, assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956." Consider this: "Under his offensive leadership and assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956."

• Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Even though the Packers had not been successful for years, Lombardi inherited a team with five future Pro Football Hall of Famers." Query: this only unfolded later, right? It was not easy to predict at the time. If so, you might imply that in the wording: "inherited a team in which five players would go on to be", or something like that.

• Agreed, fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here, you use a serial comma, which I very much like: "He immediately instituted a rigorous training routine, implemented a strict code of conduct, and demanded the team continually strive for perfection in everything they did." Why not in the sentence I quote in the fourth point, above?

• Went back and made sure the Oxford comma is used throughout. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd hyphenate just here to avoid the meaning of "primary ball". Non-experts will wonder. "primary ball-carrier"

• Added the hyphen. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why the hyphen? "The center had to cut-off the defensive tackle".

• Slipped in. A "cut-off block" is usually hyphenated, but in this use it definitely shouldn't be. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• You do need a comma here: "This was due to the right guard (when the play was run to the right side of the field) who would vacate this space while pulling to lead the ball carrier."

• Added comma. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "whether to push the play to the outside or to the inside of the tight end"

• Removed. I also reordered because "inside or outside" sounds better than "outside or inside". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perfect use of marked theme (unusual initial positioning): "For nine seasons Lombardi ran the Packers sweep with great success." Unmarked would have "for nine seasons" at the end. Nice.

• Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Same issue as two up: "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses, or would run variations of the sweep" -> "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses or run variations of the sweep"

• Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why the first comma, when the rest is a nest of seething commas? "At times, he would change the play to go to the left side, have various blockers not pull, switch the ball carrier or direction of the run, or have option pass plays, each of which could be run out the sweep formation." You don't use interrupting dashes—why not??? "plays—each of which" would be an improvement. The formulaic comma after short initial time/adverbial/prepositional phrase ... please question each use: "Throughout his tenure Lombardi ...". And you do need a comma before "who" (several of these I've commented on).

• Removed the first comma. Not good comma usage. Added a dash per your recommendation (I have to admit, I am a dash noob). I checked all the remaining instances of "who" and I believe they all are fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bumpy and awkward: "Starr, who as the quarterback orchestrated the play, and Taylor, were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays." -> "Both Starr (who as the quarterback orchestrated the play) and Taylor were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays."

• Adjusted per your recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just for comparison, the first comma here is good. Why? "In addition to the Hall of Famers, Lombardi's teams included"

• Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• In response Lombardi would ...

• Removed the comma. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Serial comma missing in one place, not in the other: "The team won three straight championships in 1965, 1966 and 1967—only the second team to accomplish this feat (the other being the 1929, 1930, and 1931 Packers)." See the dash I've used instead of your comma? It marks an afterthought here.

• Dashed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Never love the noun-plus-ing: "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep being called one of the most famous football plays in history." -> "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep's reputation as one of the most famous football plays in history."?

• Agreed, reworded per your suggestion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. Minor adjustments to writing style, and please write more articles! Love the technical depth. And memo to FAC more generally: my comments concern the whole article text, not just the lead and a bit more. Tony (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and review Tony1! I believe I have addressed all of your comments above (diff). Sorry, for, all, of, my, comma-related, issues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope to write my first writing tutorial page since the year dot, entitled Comma workshop. It's the biggest issue I'm finding at FAC more broadly—more than in the academic text I edit. I don't know why. Best. Tony (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose and (tentatively) comprehensiveness (I am no expert on American football so will leave that to the experts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments – While the article is on the short side for an FAC candidate, it does appear to comprehensively cover the subject. I didn't review the sourcing in detail, but it appears high-quality at a glance. I just have a handful of comments, with only a couple that I would call significant.

• I don't see much support for the final sentence of the lead in the body of the article. There's nothing that I can see about Lombardi, or coaches/commentators, identifying this as an element of success. The content in the relevant section is actually more direct than the lead in making this point. Since the sentence isn't supported at the moment, either relevant content should be added to that section backing the sentence or it should be rewritten to better reflect the body.

• I reworked the lead. Let me know what you think Giants2008. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 10:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sweep: I was under the impression that we usually used one word for "half back", not two. That's how our article presents it, at least.

• I feel silly on this one. You are correct: Halfback (American football). All fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lombardi era: Minor point, but the links for guard and center could be moved up to the previous section, since the terms both appear there.

• Moved both links up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• The second link to Pro Football Hall of Fame in this section is a duplicate and therefore not necessary.

• Removed second link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Legacy: "Lombardi and his sweep led the Packers to five NFL championships (including Super Bowls I and II)." This is somewhat misleading because the first several Super Bowls were held after the NFL Championship Game (indeed, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings won the next two NFL championships, but each lost in the Super Bowl). A rewording here and the lead is in order, because it sounds like the Super Bowls were the NFL championship games back then when that isn't the case.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reworded using "as well as". Thanks for the review Giants2008. I believe I have responded to and addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support – That does it for my comments. A nice little article which deserves the star, assuming the source review turns up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review and spot check by Amakuru

• Formatting looks good. Consistently uses sfn for refs where multiple page numbers are used and direct cites for others.
• Date format is consistently "Month Day, Year"
• David Maraniss (When Pride Still Mattered: A Life of Vince Lombardi) - is it really useful to have a link to a section on a page which just mentions the book's title only?
  • The only reason I included them is that they both are redirects with possibilities, so if someone (maybe me) someday writes an article on either book, they would already be linked. It doesn't bother me either way, so let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Run to Daylight - ditto.
• Ref links:
  • All links, including archive links, are active
  • Ref 24 has a title "Pro Football Hall of Famers by Team" but the actual title on the page is "Hall of Famers by Franchise"
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 - title is "NFL Champions 1920-2015" (year range isn't included in the cite)
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Bibliography: Two books have a location, two do not.
  • Fixed. Green Bay Packers: The Complete Illustrated History - Third Edition does not provide a publisher location via the Google Ebook I have access to. Don't have a hard copy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Spot checks - two possible issues found in eleven refs spotchecked. Coords please let me know if that means I need to check anything else. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 (Gruver p1)
    • Statement a back, typically the halfback or running back, takes a pitch or handoff from the quarterback and starts running parallel to the line of scrimmage - I'm not quite seeing the source backing this up. Perhaps it's my lack of understanding of American football terminology, but the source doesn't mention halfbacks or the term "parallel" anywhere.
      • The paragraph that supports this statement is as follows:

The pulling guards formed a convoy around end, with the lead guard taking out the cornerback and the offside guard picking up the middle linebacker or outside linebacker. The center executed a cutoff block on the defensive tackle, and the onside offensive tackle popped the defensive end and then sealed off the middle linebacker. The blocking back lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end, and the tight end drove the outside linebacker in the direction he wanted to go. If the linebacker made an inside move, the tight end rode him in that direction and the runner hit outside. If the linebacker went outside, the tight end moved with him and the runner cut inside.[4]

The statement "parallel to the line of scrimmage" is a clearer way of stating "formed a convoy around end" and "lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end." The idea is that instead of a typical running play where the runner runs straight forward, the sweep has the runner run parallel to the line of scrimmage (the line that the center, guards, and tackles line up on) until a hole is opened by one of the blockers. Halfback is not specifically stated in that paragraph, but it is noted in the last paragraph of that page that Paul Hornung, the primary runner of the Packers sweep, is a halfback. I see this statement as an uncontroversial clarifying statement that helps clarify the differences in positions from the 1960s to today (it was common to just use the term "back" in the 1960s, while today running back or halfback, to an extent, are more common). Let me know if you believe this requires further clarification or additional sourcing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Ref 3 (Gulbrandsen) supports the three statements it references.
  • Ref 4 (Bell) looks good.
  • Ref 5 (Gruver p2) looks good.
  • Ref 11 (Jack Sell) looks good.
  • Ref 14 (Bob Fox)
    • Even though the Packers had not been successful for a number of years, Lombardi inherited a team in which five players would go on to be Pro Football Hall of Famers - the article mentions only four players who went on to the Hall of Fame. Kramer did not (much to the author's chagrin).
      • Jerry Kramer was elected to the Hall of Fame this year (2018). I added an additional source to support Kramer's induction. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 16 (Cliff Christl) looks good.
  • Ref 20 (Bruce Weber) looks good.
  • Refs 27-29 (hall of famers) good.
  • Unable to check Dunnavant, Lombardi/Heinz or Maraniss book refs (covering 2,9,10,17-19,21-23) as I don't have the books.
• No close paraphrasing or copyvio issues noticed from the cited sources I reviewed.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru. I believe I have replied to or addressed all of your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, great thanks Gonzo fan2007. Your answers and clarification above have satisfied my concerns. I've watched quite a few football games from across the pond in the past few years, so I know a bit about the game but not the complex tactics that go on between linesmen on the opposing sides! Anyway, happy to support on the sources front. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Review by Wugapodes

At first glance I don't think I can support the article in its current state. I'll give my current impressions and will add more specific comments soon.

• The section "The sweep" covers sweep plays in general without any coverage of this sweep play in particular or the way it differs from the typical sweep play.
  • Note that the "sweep" is different than the "Packers sweep". As the intro notes, the sweep came first, so a very brief overview of the sweep is warranted to set the stage for the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree that there should be coverage of what a general sweep play is, but at least in my reading of it, it's not clear what the Packers sweep is or how it differs from a typical sweep play, which is the subject of the article and what I expected from the section entitled "The sweep". The Gulbrandsen source at page 80 seems to touch a bit on how this play differed from a typical sweep I think, and the Cliff Christl source goes into detail about how to identify and distinguish a Packers Sweep. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I clarified in "The Sweep" section, first sentence, that the sweep forms the basis of the Packers sweep. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I like it, though I rephrased it slightly to (1) put the article subject as the focus of the sentence and (2) make it clear we're talking about a sweep play not the Packers sweep. Feel free to revert or modify if you want to improve it futher.
• The first two paragraphs of the "Lombardi era" feel like coats as they provide almost no information about the play or even its development, instead focusing on the career of Vince Lombardi.
  • I disagree. The sources that focus solely on the "Packers sweep" all trace the plays development to Vince Lombardi's early coaching career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right to disagree, after a few more readings I think this comment originally mischaracterized the section, I've tried to make a more accurate point below. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• What's "basic power running"? That should be clear as it's used in the first sentence of a section.
  • I reworded it, although I believe the words "basic power running" are as simple as can be easily stated and that any reader with any knowledge of ball sports would understand the meaning of the words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I like the rewording. While the original may be clear to people with knowledge of ball sports, our articles should be accessible and informative to those who aren't, and the new wording accomplishes that. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in the "Legacy" section duplicates a lot of the information in the previous section.
  • In my experience, it is common in sports-related articles to include a section that summarizes the legacy of the person, place, or event. This sometimes requires reiterating—minimally—some facts already stated in the article to provide proper understanding of its true legacy. That said, if you have specific comments I am obviously open to revisions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • My issue is that the reiterated information isn't about the legacy of the play, it's about the contemporaneous impact of the play. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by "Legacy" but my interpretation is that it covers things that happened after the "Lombardi era" which the first paragraph doesn't do. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section has too many coats. Thirteen packers were elected to the hall of fame, but not all were from the offense and so the only ones who would have run this play.
  • Again, this reinforces the most important aspect of the Packers sweep, that it epitomized the success of the NFL's first dynasty and the coaching career of one of its greatest coaches. The success of the Packers in the 1960s relied on the whole team functioning as a team, meaning that the success of the offenses feeds off the defense, and vice versa. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree that the whole team was good, but the article is about the specific play, not the 1960s Packers. The success of the team was related to the defense, but the success of this particular play depended on the offense and not the defense (and a number of sources seem to support that such as the Gulbrandsen source which says "The Packers' offensive success in the Lobardi era largely revolved around ... the sweep."). It's not clear from the article or the sources I've read that non-offensive line players were implicated in the sweep beyond being on the same team that ran it. That said, I've edited my original comment because I realize I had misread the sentence, the 3 offensive players were MVPs, not related to the number of players elected to the Hall of Fame. Though looking at the list of inductees, there are some exclusively defensive players so I would still like the connection between this play and those defensive players clarified. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I've reworded to only reference the offensive players. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I want to go through the sources more thoroughly, but the last paragraph of the "Legacy" strikes me as attributing more to this play than is perhaps warranted. Presumably they won championships for reasons beyond a single play, the article even mentions other teams saw the success of the Packers being their players and training, so attribution of this success to this play singularly or substantially should be clear from the sourcing.
  • I would encourage you to go through the sources. They all make it clear that the Packers sweep was the defining play of the Packers in the 1960s, as well as the storied coaching career of Vince Lombardi. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • After reading some of the sources, I'm convinced and have struck, though see my other comments about the "Legacy" section. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like there's a number of aspects missing from this article, namely how this play was countered, the effectiveness of those counters, whether it was picked up by other teams for use contemporaneously or after the fact. There's no specific examples of its use in a game or statistics on how successful it was in terms of offensive production.
  • Honestly, I can't write what isn't provided in reliable sources. Coverage of the NFL in the 1960s was vastly different than today, with unreliable statistics and almost no play-by-play analysis. The sources don't provide intricate details on how defenses countered the sweep; they mostly just note that defenses tried to defend the sweep particularly but usually failed because of the Packers execution or by Lombardi making slight changes to how the play was run. A few sources mention a specific instance where the play was run, but that doesn't really provide anything useful to the reader. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find pages 3 and 4 of the Gruver source helpful in this regard. It discusses how Landry of the Cowboys developed the "Flex" defense as a direct counter, and gives a specific example of the alterations to the sweep which countered the flex defense. The first two pages of the Gulbrandsen source at page 80 also gives information on how a particular play-action pass would be used if a safety or linebacker was preparing for a sweep to the right. The Bob Fox source gives a primary source estimate of 8.3 yards a carry during the first 3 years of its use. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the article, I don't feel like I understand what the play is beyond something Vince Lombardi made the Packers do. It seems to give excessive weight to things that are not the main subject of the article at the expense of content about the play itself. In general, I would like the information about the play proper to be more obvious and emphasized so that it's clear the article is about the play and not the 1959–67 Packers. Until then I'll need to oppose this nomination. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Wugapodes, I'll await your more specific comments. That said, I do disagree with most of your points above and would recommend you go through the sources more closely. This is especially true for the Ed Gruver source and Vince Lombardi's biography (if you have access to it), as they both go in depth on the impact of the play on the entire team. All of the other sources make it clear that the Packers sweep had a massive impact on the success of the team, both during the actual games and in developing their own mystique or identity. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gonzo fan2007: I've struck a number of my comments above and responded inline where I could, though I'll summarize and clarify some of my points here. To be specific, my concerns regard FA criteria 1b, 1d, and 4.

The article is very well researched and the sources are of high quality and show a good breadth and depth of coverage, however the article is not comprehensive in its coverage as major facts are excluded or not placed in context: it's not clear from the article how this play differs from other plays despite this being covered in the sources; major details such as specific counters and modifications to the play as described in sources are not adequately discussed; a clear description of the play is relegated to an image caption while a longer prose description comes in the 5th paragraph of the article and third in a section entitled "Lombardi era" and confusingly not in "The sweep". Above I provided places in some sources that I think could help remedy this.

The issue of 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length) are in this case closely intertwined and related to the proportion of coverage given to Lombardi and the Packers. While major details about the play are hard to find or not covered, a great deal is dedicated to the career of Lombardi to the point where it reads more like a biography of him than an article about the play proper. For example, there is a section named "Lombardi era" though there's no indication this was part of any other era, and is confusing given that the section is about the development of the sweep not exclusively Lombardi's time on the Packers. The first paragraph of that section includes a number of details about Vince Lombardi that don't contribute to the understanding of the play or its development such as him having a football scholarship to Fordham, the nickname of his college offensive line, the win record of a high school football team, and sentences about him further developing his coaching skills which add length but not information. This leads to a disproportion of coverage, with the article focusing heavily on the success of Lombardi and the Packers but with proportionally less coverage on the nominal subject of the article, the particular play. Removing some of the extraneous information about Lombardi not related to the development of this play would likely remedy this. A renaming of the section heading so that it is more informative (the play is not discussed in any other era, so "Lombardi era" doesn't give us much information as to what will be in the section) would also help.

With regards to 4, I'm also concerned about the use of summary style and the organization of information. The section "Lombardi era" starts in 1933, 20 years before he had an NFL coaching job. If a reader wanted to know how Lombardi used this play with the Packers, they'd need to skim through two paragraphs of biographical information before getting to what is typically known as the "Lombardi era". A restructure of the section so that the most important and general information comes first and specific details later in the section would help remedy this. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added an additional section titled "Early development" to cover the earlier years prior to Lombardi coaching in the NFL and renamed the Lombardi era section. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the changes since I first commented on the article and in general I'm satisfied that the issues I've raised are mostly resolved. I no longer oppose the nomination and so have struck those mentions. Where resolved, I've struck the original comment. I also made a couple edits to the page that I think would improve it further. These should be viewed as suggestions and you're free to revert if you don't like them. I moved the first paragraph, about Lombardi's time with the Giants, into the "early development" section because it seems to fit more with the development of the packers sweep than the implementation of the packers sweep. I also slightly tweaked the "The sweep" section so it's a little more clear. I still think some of my comments above could be dealt with more, but I see nothing worth holding up the nomination over. I enjoyed reviewing this article and learned a lot, thanks for putting your work out there. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wugapodes. I plan on addressing your other comments in the next few days, as IRL time permits. Your edits looks good to me, appreciate the assistance and review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I have reworked the Legacy section to tighten it up. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Next, I will work on addressing your comment on how defenses tried to stop the sweep, whether it was successful, and how Lombardi reacted to these changes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I believe I have addressed your comments to a certain extent. Will you take a look at the article now and strike through any resolved comments. Just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Sorry I've not been responding quickly, this week has given me far less free time than I had hoped with travel and visits for the US holiday. I've skimmed your most recent changes and generally they look good, so don't hold anything up on my account. I do hope to take a closer look in the next day or so once I'm finished traveling. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem Wugapodes, no big rush. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, just following up to see if you have had a chance to review the changes and see if they have addressed your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have, yes, sorry I took so long. The prose is still well put together despite all this shuffling, it clearly and comprehensively covers it's subject, and it's verifiable to high quality sources. Support Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

• Did the Packers really not have a sweep in their playbook before Lombardi arrived?
  • I imagine they did. It is pretty common though for a new coach to come into a new team with a completely new playbook. Either way, I haven't seen any sources mention this specifically. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The article implies that when Lombardi arrived he brought in the sweep that wasn't previously in there, and nothing else, both of which appear to be inaccurate --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Let me know if this edit resolves your concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure. Now you're saying that the first play that they ran in his first match as coach was the sweep. What are you trying to say? I'm not trying to be a pedant here, genuinely don't understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
          • The source says "It was the first play Lombardi put in when he took over in Green Bay, telling his team, 'Gentlemen, if we can make this play work, we can run the football.'" Generally, it was the first play that he taught (or conveyed) to his team when he gave them the playbook. If you have a proposed wording, let me know. I made another slight change here. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that'll do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• More important, but very easy to fix, I don't believe you've actually referenced in the article that the terms are notable. This is crucial! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dweller, sorry if I am missing something, but which terms are you referencing? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Green Bay Sweep, Lombardi Sweep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Dweller, I still don't get what you mean. Can you give me an example of what change you are specifically looking for? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
        • See the way the opening words of Ball of the Century are referenced. You give tons of references in this article, but nowhere can I see that you reference that reliable sources refer to this phenomenon using the words. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Dweller, the Gulbrandsen source uses both the "Packers sweep" and "Lombardi sweep". The Gruver source is titled "Lombardi sweep". The Maraniss and Dunnavant sources uses "Packer sweep". The Green Bay Press Gazette source about Jerry Kramer uses "Packers sweep". The New York Times article uses "Packer sweep." It has also been called in a few sources the "Green Bay Packers sweep", the "power sweep", the "Lombardi power sweep". I chose the two titles as they cover the predominant variations in the title (i.e. using just "Packers" or adding in "Lombardi" in some way). I don't view this as a controversial fact that warrants a citation in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Is that all you are looking for, a citation to back-up the naming of the article? Note that I had the Gulbrandsen source in the lead a while ago, but it was removed by another editor here, which I agreed with. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I'm sensitive to the idea of not citing in the lead, but somewhere you need to demonstrate that the terms are notable. How about "The development of what became known as the Packers sweep,[source] (also known as the Lombardi sweep),[source] began..." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
              • Dweller, I have made your suggested change. Thanks for the review, let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, happy to support. Additional minor comments, not needed for support: more photos would be great, like Starr or Lombardi. Also, a niggly thing, but the diagram shows the HB rushing outside the TE only, when the caption explains he could go inside too. Dunno how easy it is to get diagram amended. If it's easy, could the offence and defence be different colours? Overall, fine work, congratulations. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller!

I originally had a photo of Starr and Lombardi (File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg), but the image review brought up some concerns about when the image was first published, and thus its copyright status. The consensus was to just remove the photo. I don't believe there are any other photos of those two that don't have the same issue.

The diagram is very easy to manipulate. I added colors (blue and red) to differentiate the offense and defense (see image to the right). Let me know if that is what you were looking for. If you have any other suggested changes with the graphic, let me know. Regarding going inside or outside the TE, if you look closely there is a solid line going outside the TE, and a dashed line going inside the TE. This is how the diagram is displayed in the source I used, so I am hesitant to make any changes that don't match the source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on the diagram. There are some interesting options here (check out the old guy with a woman - is that him?) and there's a lovely photo in this bunch --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all CC licenses can be uploaded to Wikimedia. You have to select commercial/modifications allowed for Wikimedia (at least that's my understanding). The searches become much less helpful: Bart Starr and Paul Hornung. Both the workable photos of Starr are likely tagged with an incorrect license and would have the same issues as the previous photo. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

This is a very impressive FAC debut so far, testament to the value of good preparation...

• As it is your first, Gonzo, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go.
• Also we'll need a regular source review for reliability and formatting, unless Clikity did it based on their comment at the top?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian Rose, I have added a request for both at WT:FAC. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 [5].

---

History of aluminium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is small yet hopefully interesting spin-off from its mother article, aluminium. I've made my best to make it a decent read so I hope you'll find it good, too!--R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

To what extent do "history of ..." articles normally define the thing they're historicising? We seem to jump in at the start without (for a grade-school reader, for example) giving a short, orienting definition ... perhaps shorter than in the Aluminium article, but something more like it—at least that it's an element, with abbrev. Al, and now a major blah blah. What you think?

I wasn't thinking at all about context since this article was started as a spin-off from aluminium, but now that you've brought that up, I'll try to add up a para to lead during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe we need "greatly", maybe not. "whose work" is more than just the "discovery", is it?

  I'd say we do need that "greatly", Woehler did really lots of early work and that partially was why everyone was so keen to keep him as the discoverer in the 19th century. "Whose work" is indeed just discovery; but what do I do?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  To greatly extend. It's not smoothly idiomatic. What is wrong with "whose work was extended"? Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, since you insist, I'll rely on your judgment. It's not like I can make a good case for "greatly extended," anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Pure aluminium metal was difficult to refine and thus rare."—"rare" we'd normally ascribe to the raw material, wouldn't we? But here it's causally connected with the refined product.

  Good point. Changed to "uncommon."

• Probably comma after "process". Jointly developed, or independently? The second "developed" might be possible as "devised" ... unsure.

  It seems to me we'd do fine without that comma though if you disagree, I'll modestly recognize your authority over myself on that. Independently; added that. I don't see the need to differentiate these two, so since you're unsure, I'm, too, inclined to keep it as it currently is.

• Remove "day".

  Okay.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• These methods ... these methods.

  I've changed the former to "these processes."

• Is it a because since or a ever-since since?

  In this particular sentence, it's an ever-since since, but both would be correct, actually. Why?

  Because your text should avoid double meanings, even if both are correct. It's unclear to the readers. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've reworded the sentence to avoid that "since."--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• 57.5 million?

  I'd rather not. I want this long number from 2015 (57,500,000) to serve as an antipode to the short number from 1900 (6,800), so that the difference strikes the reader.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "... and as astringents for dressing wounds; alum was also used in medicine, ...". Is dressing wounds medical?

  You're right.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "a fire-resistant coating for wood (which protected fortresses from enemy arson attempts),"—simpler as "a fire-resistant coating for wood to protect fortresses from enemy arson,"

  Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium metal was unknown to them." Remove last two words as contextually redundant?

  Well spotted.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• in order to. Please: to.

  But it does say, "in order to"?

  What do you mean? Remove the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Some sources suggest a possibility that this metal was aluminium;[b] this claim has been disputed.[5]"—"Some sources suggest that this metal was aluminium[b], a claim that has been disputed.[5]"

  I'll blindly follow but could you explain to me (this is a genuine question) why this is an improvement as it requires more words?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Grammar is smoother and simpler, and it's about the same number of words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It is possible that the Chinese were able to produce aluminium-containing alloys" -> "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys" ... glad I zapped that first "possibility".

  Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem. Tony (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS You're a native-speaker of Russian? Then your English is mighty good. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find someone whose English would be better than mine to get this done.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment!--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Would be good for the nominator to hang around in the days after launching it. Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: John and I have made some improvements; please would you take a look? I've mostly been busy lately so the changes didn't occur as fast as they should have but nonetheless, here we are. Most of the changes have been made by myself, so someone definitely needs to check the result, but I still think the text flow actually has gotten better. If you say it is good enough now, great! If you tell me otherwise, I will invest more time into getting some help with prose quality.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• "who had the discoverer killed so that the metal would not diminish the value of"—kill one word. And please put that word in the finder box and check that all 56 of them are necessary (in the subsequent sentence, you've got two of them closetogether ... so ... "Some sources suggest that this metal could be aluminium,[b] but this has been disputed."). Get John to check your diff of excisions. Unfortunately there are a lot of "demonstrated that" and "determined that", which is hard to get around. It's not easy to get the hang of this, but try to remove a third of them. Always check for ambiguity if removing.

  I've tried my best and I'm waiting for John's response.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's not usual to use "source(s)" so often, explicitly. Usually making a proposition at the right certainty level and inserting a ref tag is enough. Perhaps once or twice explicitly mention "source(s)", but ... ration it.

  I agree we should avoid mentioning sources explicitly but I genuinely don't understand, do we do that once?--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Beginning"—why not simpler: "start"? It's English. Simple and plain are elegant.

  Why not.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "another half a century"—remove one word.

  Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1728, French chemist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire claimed"—is the clause really long enough to require a comma there?

  I can't claim I know the right way but I've seen lots of texts in English and the comma appears natural to me. I suspect it may be a BrE vs. AmE thing as I have seen British texts omit this comma more often and I try to write in AmE so that makes another reason for me to want this comma to stay.

  Also, here's what I found online: "Use a comma after phrases or clauses of more than three words that begin a sentence (unless it is the subject of the sentence). If the phrase has fewer than three words, the comma is optional." This does allow for the comma as well.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Clunky: "and attempted to reduce it to its metal with no success". Can you relocate and change the grammar of "success"?

  I feel like this is a test that I'm about to fail :( I wrote "attempted to reduce it to its metal, but with no success"; I hope this is any better.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Awkward: "His methods were not reported but he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time." Smoother to reverse? "he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time, though his methods were not documented/published ... do not survive"? Reported is a bit vague ...

  Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a metal which" -> that, where there's no comma before. Or avoid that urchin: "a metal with an affinity ..."/

  I used the latter.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures; they found small metallic particles, which they believed to be the sought-after metal, but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash." Better:

  "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures. They found small metallic particles they believed were the sought-after metal; but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash."

• "He then tried to heat alumina with potassium; potassium oxide was formed, but he was unable to find the sought-after metal." He tried to heat or he did heat? The stove wouldn't work? "He then heated alumina with potassium, forming potassium oxide, but was unable to find the sought-after metal." Sometimes "produce" could be used instead of your "find". The next, similar sentence needs similar editing.

  Good comment re "tried to heat." Changed the wordings in those two sentences.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's a one-sentence paragraph.

  I'm not particularly hot about it, either, but I don't see what can be done about it. The article goes chronologically, and this one-sentence experiment falls between the series of Davy's experiments (which are numerous and make a paragraph of its own) and Oersted's discovery (which also makes a paragraph of its own).--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• he he he. "Berzelius attempted to isolate the metal in 1825; he carefully washed by carefully washing the potassium analog of the base salt in cryolite in a crucible. Prior to the experiment he had correctly identified the formula of this salt prior to the experiment as K3AlF6. He found no metal, but his ..."

  Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• More he he: "He continued his research and in 1845, he was able ..." -> "He continued his research, and in 1845 was able ..."

  Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm tired. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap

I reviewed this at GAN and have accordingly little to add, beyond the fact that I think it a fine article.

• Footnote C should mention that the Al-Cu alloys are alluded to in Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), wikilinking Joseph Needham.

  I don't like the idea of including a cite for the sake of including a cite; the rest of the text does not explicitly mention any specific sources and I'd like to keep it that way. I would, however, gladly use the book as a reference to back some fact from it, but what could I back? Here's the book itself.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "for the sake of". The footnote uses another ref already. Needham's opinion is highly relevant as both a sinologist and a chemist, and probably the most respected of all sources on such matters. If that isn't sufficient for you, then consider that the question of what alloys and chemistry the Chinese actually had is a matter for scholarly debate; and that editors must not rely on their personal knowledge or opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

My question as of now, is the following: which exact claim could we support with this book? I am absolutely not opposed to the idea of backing some statement with this book, just to make that clear. My point is that as of right now, the statements that we make are a little more bold than those contained in the book: for instance, the book claims that aluminium alloys could have been made in "medieval" China, whereas the article claims this could have been the case even earlier, in China of the first Jin dynasty (265--420). I don't see the reason to call the existing source unworthy and thus the stronger claim not supported, but maybe you do? Then the note briefly describes how that idea is possible and I'd be glad to reference the book on that but unfortunately, it doesn't describe how that could be possible. It doesn't seem that there is something in the book that we don't have yet in the article but that we could add to reference the book on that (please feel free to prove me wrong here; maybe I did miss something?)

I have prepared a citation in advance in case we do find a claim to back with the book: Needham, Joseph (1974). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 2: Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Magisteries of Gold and Immortality. Cambridge University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-521-08571-7.--R8R (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing like that at all. All that needs to be said is that Needham took an interest in the matter and suggested the Al-Cu alloys as the explanation. Needham is himself a major figure and his historically stated opinion is itself of interest. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Finally I came up with something that adds to the content we already have. Please take a look.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I somewhat concur with Tony that a brief bit of context on the metal would be useful.

  Just as I told Tony, I'll try to get a para on that this weekend--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) or maybe even tomorrow if I'm lucky.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  John has added a paragraph and I've touched it as well; please see what came out.

  Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, "The nature of alum remained unknown." is rather a bald lead in to 'Establishing the nature of alum'. Perhaps add something like 'until the nineteenth century'.

  Well, the story follows the chronological order and I kind of hoped that would be apparent to a reader. "Until the 19th century" wouldn't be correct; I've mentioned the chronologically consistent time mark of the beginning of the Renaissance. I think this should be fine as the next sentence already tells us about how this nature of alum was slowly revealed by later scientists.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I still think we should have a few words about the time period intended in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I tried to start the section with "Around 1500"; does it do the trick or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Much better, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, too, the lead sentence in 'Rare metal' says simply "the metal remained rare; its cost exceeded that of gold." Again, some description of the period of time (i.e. not just a single date, but a range) during which this remained true would be helpful. I know it's defined in more detail below, but the lead sentence needs to give at least a valid clue to the content. Something like 'for much of the nineteenth century' would do, or you might prefer to name some dates.

  I see what you're pointing at but I can only tell this: a kilogram of gold cost about $665 in 1852 [6] while a kilogram of aluminum cost $1,200 that year [7] (I doubt either is a Wiki-reliable source, by the way). So to be fair to the reader, we can tell him that this was true before Deville's method was implemented (which is correct), and then in the next sentence, we say this method was announced in 1854. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)#

  It sounds just the sort of thing needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest we should add the discovery date to the caption under the image of Wöhler, though given the earlier date of Ørsted's claim, we should either have an image of Ørsted with his date, or a mention of Ørsted's possibly-prior claim in the Wöhler caption. Personally I'd think an image of Ørsted would be more appropriate: the section is easily long enough for a second image.

  I agree; done.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Recycling is said to be "extensive" but no figures for recycling tonnage or percentage (of total Al scrap, or compared to new Al production: both might be helpful) are given. We might go further and use a recent image of Aluminium recycling (e.g. File:DillingenAluminiumSchrott.jpg), or indeed create a subsection for 'Recycling'. Currently recycling is covered in parts of both paragraphs of 'Mass usage', which is not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is a very worthy comment. I'll try to look into this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I've expanded on the history of aluminium recycling in both sections relating to the 20th century. As for figures of secondary aluminum vs. primary aluminum, as far as I know, figures for secondary aluminium are only available for the United States (from 1913) and China (from 1950) rather than the whole world. I've referenced the United States data once; I don't want to reference more, though, so that the article does not appear too U.S.-centric.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Msny thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I've briefly included your picture of aluminum scrap instead of the can picture (there is not enough room to just add a picture without removing one) but then I looked at the article and it didn't seem right that we had two scrap-related pictures in a row. After replacing the can picture with the scrap picture, I expanded a little on recycling in the 1970s and beyond and it turned out that cans were actually important for recycling, so I hope that the re-added can picture still sort of counts in a way as scrap-related :) --R8R (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tovarna_glinice_in_aluminija_Kidričevo_-_kupi_aluminija_1968.jpg: when/where was this first published?

  From what I get from the file description, the picture was published in Yugoslav/Slovene newspaper Večer on March 21, 1968.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hans_Christian_Ørsted_daguerreotype.jpg needs a US PD tag

  Done.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg: what is the copyright status of the coin itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  I genuinely don't get this one. This is not a work of art which you may be not allowed to make copies of; it is a coin, that is, money. How can it have a copyright status?--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  It is a coin, but it's not just a blank piece of metal - it has a design that is potentially copyrightable. See commons:Commons:Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  I see; thank you for the link, the read was very enlightening. Germany's coins are not usually copyright-free; however, I suspect this is the case with our picture as the coin's emission ended in 1922. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany tells us that the copyright term in Germany is the author's lifespan + 70 years; but I cannot figure what rules do you apply when there is no particular author to attribute the design to?--R8R (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  If there is no identified engraver for this particular coin, then it would be either PD-EU-no author disclosure or Template:PD-GermanGov - I'm not sure whether coins fall under the latter. And then with a 1920 date the pre-1923 tag would cover the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you for your help! I've updated the licenses.--R8R (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Commons has commons:Template:PD-GermanGov-currency and this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you for these links! I've changed the license. Does it mean that the information given in commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany is outdated and requires an update?--R8R (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  Probably yes but I'd ask on Commons rather than here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp

I'll review this soon... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the first paragraph of the lede seems to be more about aluminium itself than about its history. While some understanding of what aluminium is and the scale of its production is of course necessary to comprehend its history, I think it would be better if we made the links of these properties to aluminium's history explicit rather than just seguing into it in the second paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section was added during this very FAC after two editors had suggested giving some general context and the beginning of the lead section was the most logical place to add the context to. I have no strong opinion on whether we should have this paragraph at all; perhaps leaning against it if anything, but since other editors disagree, I'll comply to them as I have no strong objections. I absolutely agree that it is better to link properties to various moments of history to explain why this and that even happened for this element and I tried to do so throughout the text; this is perhaps most easily seen in the sections on the 20th century as more properties became important and led to mass usage of the metal.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the link is shown throughout the text, but I think it would be better to make it a bit clearer in the lede, even if it's just to mention that there was a link without explaining it yet. This is of course a small matter indeed and the rest of the article looks fine so far; I'll try to give it a good read through ASAP... Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, that's a good idea. I wanted to come up with something simple to take away; please see how I did.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: That does look a lot better! I'm really sorry for taking this long to get back to it; I was rather busy in October and wanted to wait till I could read the whole thing at once. I've given the main body of the article a full read now; it is very comprehensive, although I think that it sometimes feels too much like a timeline written in prose with all the sentences beginning "In [some year]". Maybe a bit of variation would improve this? As it stands of course we have already improved on a bare timeline by reordering some things to better fit the logical trains of thought. This is just a minor suggestion, so I'll give my support first. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about me waiting for you; I'm glad you found the time to read the article. Thank you very much for your support!

In many ways, history of aluminium is indeed a timeline, because it was essentially "a chemist did this" and "another chemist did that" and those happened at certain moments; we can only discuss continuous processes from the moment aluminum was first produced industrially and realistically only from the launch of the Hall-Heroult process in 1886, after which the text indeed changes from its timeline-like structure. So it does seem useful to keep a uniform style of showing when similar singular events happened. However, if I'm missing something and you do see a way how the text could be improved that I don't, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Векочел

It looks like a good coverage of the history of aluminium. Векочел (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin - Support

Albeit, I do not have all that much experience reviewing featured article candidates on Wikipedia, I have done many similar reviews in the past, so I'll do my best to give my take on the candidate. I have read through the criteria for FAC, and now all I need to do is analyze what's there at History of aluminium.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now read through the article. For starters, you did take out most of the kinks in the article, for I do agree with most of the previous reviews and the changes they suggested. However, there are a few problems that still jump out to me after a basic read-through. I will add more to this list when I thoroughly go back through here. One read isn't enough for a review, but here are the things that I would constantly notice even if I were to read the article again.

@R8R: Sorry for not checking back in for a couple days. I'll now review your changes.

• "Aluminium compound alum has been known since the 5th century BCE and was extensively used by ancients for dyeing and city defense; the former usage grew more important in medieval Europe." "Extensively used"? I personally would prefer if the wordage was "Used extensively". As far as I can research, the popular option for adverbs describing "used" is to place the adverb after, but I'm no grammatical expert myself. I could be wrong. And also, could you elaborate on "grew more important"? How did it?

  As for "used extensively": both seem fine to me. I checked online and according to a dictionary, "extensively used" is fine and used in the actual language (they provide this example sentence: "This instrument was for some years extensively used in the United States, until superseded by G.").

  As for "grew more important": thanks for noticing this, I'll elaborate on this soon.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I tried a different sentence; what do you think of it?--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yup, the issues were cleaned up here. I don't have problems with the rewording. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon." I believe I know what you mean, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what "uncommon" really means in this context.

  I'd like to use a simple addition like "uncommon in actual usage," which I used. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Adding "in actual usage" is a big improvement, which is all I needed. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium became much more available to the general public with the Hall–Héroult process independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886 and the Bayer process developed by Austrian chemist Carl Joseph Bayer in 1889." If two people developed the Hall–Héroult, then it wasn't independent, simply put.

  Sorry, I didn't understand this one. The point is, both Heroult and Hall (two people who didn't know each other and weren't related in any other way) came up with the same principles that could be applied to aluminum production and both actually tested them at the same time, unaware of the other co-inventor's work. It is a mere coincidence that two different people in two different countries came up with this. There is no real priority between these two (after reading the book I most heavily relied on while writing this article, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, I got the impression that Heroult was the more innovative one, but then I've seen a few times Americans in the Internet claiming Hall was the more innovative one, and they, too, had their valid points), so the process is named after both.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah... sorry about that. This is one of many of my comments where I was unsure what you meant by "independently". See my later comment. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Introduction of these methods to mass production of aluminium led to the extensive use of the metal in industry and everyday lives." This is the correct instance of "extensive use", and should be left as is. Could you clarify what other industries that aluminium is utilized in, for "everyday lives" is very much subjective.

  I will think about what exactly should be added here; in the meantime, I restored a sentence on this.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've altered it a bit further; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  Adding the examples was a great help here. The lead looks pretty good so far! I wouldn't recommend anymore changes on that front. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1813, American chemist Benjamin Silliman repeated Hare's experiment and obtained small granules of the sought-after metal, which almost immediately burned." I do not believe that this sentence elicits its own paragraph; I suggest a merger of this with the paragraph talking about Hare's experiment, suggesting that Hare's experiment would later be repeated by Silliman along with Silliman's results.

  Tony above made a similar comment but I really don't see what's wrong with this given the chronological order the events are listed in. I think that the chronological order is important and should be preserved as long as possible. It is only slightly corrupted in the last two sections which deal with overlapping continuous processes rather than single events.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Okay fair, I can agree with you here. I have had a self-evaluation on the importance of chronology in wikipedia articles (such as my very much underwhelming conclusion of a GAR for Origin and use of the term metalloid), and decided that keeping small paragraph featuring different time stamps is actually important for the article's overall readability and the reader's understanding. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; by the time of the next fair in 1878, aluminium had become a symbol of the future." Saying that "aluminium had become the symbol for the future" is subjective and also not factually valid (even though it may hold true to a certain extent, but that's not the point).

  I agree, it is indeed overly vague and subjective, thanks for noticing this. I'll work on it.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've checked the source and it turned out I didn't paraphrase it accurately. I have corrected the sentence; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; at the next fair in 1878, aluminium was considered the most important technological and scientific breakthrough. Considered by whom? Consideration is still subjective unless we are aware of the source of the considering. Even "considered by many" is slightly better, however then we wouldn't know who the "many" are. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for making me look into this; I would've probably not even given it a thought if it wasn't for you. The source I used didn't go into detail about this; they actually said something like "it was considered the top achievement, period." I grew suspicious and tried to google this; it doesn't appear that aluminum was so amazing (makes sense, it wasn't the metal first public appearance and it was still rare). I have found two possibly good sources but not only are they in French but also not available online and thus out of my reach. I doubt I'd find anything astonishing, though, and thus removed any mention of the 1878 fair (and relocated the mention of the 1867 fair).--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854, independently by Deville and the German chemist Robert Wilhelm Bunsen." Did you mean to include "developed?" And once again, not truly independently. I'd pick a different adjective.

  I don't see the problem with prose here but I'd like to. I didn't mean to include "developed." Consider this sentence: "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds fine, doesn't it? The phrase in the article is essentially this after you have removed "independently," which doesn't affect the grammar used here.

  I don't see what's so bad about "independently." They were working on their own without sharing their work with each other, after all. However, I don't insist on this particular word but I can't come up with a good replacement. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Here we have another misinterpretation of the word "independently". I saw two names, so I figured it was wrong. After reading through your response to mine, I realized that I was wrong on my judgement of the word. See my comment below (I'll let you know which one).

  However, you asked me to consider "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds good. Why then is there a comma after "1854"? The comma is what made me think you meant to include "developed". If the sentence read "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 independently by Deville," I wouldn't have a problem. Correct me if the new grammar is wrong, I'm no expert. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  I actually don't know, English punctuation never was my specialty. I have read rules on it several times but little has imprinted in my brain. So... can't tell. Let's leave out the comma for now but have it back if anyone shows a rule that supports it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The first large-scale production method was independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886; it is now known as the Hall–Héroult process." All three instances of the word "independently" are all incorrect. Only use "independently" if the development was indeed by a sole person without any outside input from others.

  But what's wrong with it now? While they worked at the same time, both indeed did so without any outside input.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  You're right, it was never wrong in the first place. I just misinterpreted. See comment below (directly below) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "At the same time, Hall produced aluminium by the same process in his home at Oberlin, and successfully tested it at the smelter in Lockport." So what you are telling me is that Hall and Héroult produced aluminium by the SAME process at the SAME time? I personally would love to know more how the two came together to collaborate and create one singular "Hall–Héroult process", or how they happened to devise a method summary and perform the aluminium production simultaneously. Unless there was no input between the two and they truly created almost identical methods on their own, that they actually performed the process independently, and I was wrong the whole entire time about the "independent" debate. The creation of the Hall–Héroult process could use some more elaboration on the relationship between both Héroult's and Hall's processes and/or collaborations.

  Yes, exactly! They came up with the same process. However, they did not collaborate at all.

  Since it was unclear to you, I'd love to do something to make sure other readers won't make that mistake. I'll think about it; I'll also gladly listen to anything you have to say on this if there is anything.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Here is the "comment below". Yeah, I couldn't tell that they were doing this separately at first. Every time you said "independently", there were always two names. I'm unsure how to clarify this, but perhaps some insight on the creation of the Hall–Héroult process would be appreciate. On the page dedicated to it, there is no history section. This article could be a good place to include such information, being it is called "HISTORY of aluminium". You could also use "separately" to show that they were not collaborating, or "at the same time" to show the simultaneity of their synthesis. Each of those wordings, if used at all, should fit the instance that "independently" is used, and I'm not forcing you to even change the wordings in the first place. Maybe its only me who didn't understand. Regardless, its up to you. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't quite understand what kind of insight you want. Probably I could provide it, but what are you suggesting?

  "Separately" seems to carry the same meaning as "independently" but the latter word seems better suited for an encyclopedia, so I'd rather keep it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  By insight on the creation of the Hall-Héroult process, I was referring to when the process was named jointly after both of the developers. Because they were working separately, someone must have figured out that they both were completing the process at the same time (or else it would be called the "Hall process" or the "Héroult process". However, this info would be best linked to the actual article for the Hall Héroult process, so I don't have an issue about it. Sorry I didn't say anything at the start. I wish there was a definitive way to make it clearer for the "independently" debacle, but that's the best you and I can do, and that is perfectly fine. If you have better ideas, just let me know. I'm fine with what is there now that I understand it, but improves are never bad. That's all I've got; should have made it clear. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well, people did eventually figure it out but apparently only after both Hall and Heroult got their patents because the patent office in France (Hall filed his patent a month earlier IIRC) did not find any mention of the process being patented in the United States; maybe even the news didn't spread that quickly at all and the French bureaucrats couldn't possibly find such information at the time. And they did not become market competitors in 1886 or 1888; it only occurred later that there was a point of transporting aluminum across the Atlantic Ocean because the market for aluminum was still small at that point.

  Nevertheless, I'm happy that there's nothing wrong with the article. I've got no ideas on improvement but it seems fine now. I'm surprised this puzzled you in the first place.--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Prices for aluminium declined, and the metal had become widely used in jewelry, many everyday items, eyeglass frames, and optical instruments by the early 1890s." I personally would introduce the year before you describe the development of aluminium usage in said year. Even if you don't, the first four words constitute a fragment, and require that "the" be placed at the beginning, even if it isn't usually spoken as such. If "the" is added, the sentence still requires a sentence rearrangement, for it is unknown when the prices for aluminium declined. Finally, it is viable to include a general term in a list, such as "many everyday items" as it is currently written. However, if you are going to do so, make sure that the general term concludes the list rather than sits in the middle of it. One possible suggestion that combines all of my own is as follows, "By the early 1890s, the prices for aluminium declined as the metal became widely used in jewelry, eyeglass frames, optical instruments, and many everyday items." In my opinion, even that simple fix makes a huge difference.

  In my understanding, prices for aluminum fell first (after the production costs fell) and then, since it was cheaper and therefore things made of it were also cheaper, it became used in more and more applications. Also, yes, I don't know when exactly prices for aluminum fell: there is little statistical data from the 19th century. So I'd love to keep the "prices declined" part separate from rest of the sentence. I tried some rewording; please see if it's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yup, the wording is all good now! No problems there anymore. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Without these shipments, the efficiency of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." Over a half? Half of what? I believe I know what you mean, but simply stating "over a half" is not concise enough for an encyclopedia. Perhaps either a better worded clarification, or a hard quantity instead of "over a half".

  I have rephrased the sentence to "Without these shipments, the output of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." This seems clearer to me. Unfortunately, hard quantities are not available.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have checked ru.wiki and they say that the U.S. aluminum aid from Lend-Lease was equal to 106% of the Soviet Union's own production. However, they suggest a different absolute quantity of this aid (301 thousand metric tons vs. 328 as stated in this article), so I guess we can't rely on exact percentages since data differs by source. The current wording seems fine to me anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's fine. I'll give it a pass if there isn't any quantities available. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Production fell after the war but then rose again." Oh man, this sentence needs a whole lot of justification/clarification. Either that, or it can be deleted, since it doesn't truly add anything all too meaningful to the understandably of the section it is placed in. If it is kept, we will need to know when and by how much production fell, and why (perhaps due to the lack of previously warring countries' need for tanks and jets, and therefore lack of need for aluminium to build them). Moreover, we will also need to know when, how much, and why the production rose again at this alluded time and place.

  Hmm. This sentence comes exclusively from statistical data from United States Geological Survey (you can read the MS Excel document in the source if you want or look at the graph in the next section). I intended to make this section span over the period of time from immediately after the Hall--Heroult process was first used to 1950. (And the next section begins with an event in the 1950s.) I have no explanation supported by sources at the moment but the general idea seems obvious: production of aluminum was extremely intensified (the fact that a British minister pleaded to the nation to donate aluminum is very descriptive; I will easily believe that miners and workers at factories overworked: their country was at war; et cetera) and this intensification caused by the war could not last forever.

  Also, we don't go into such detail for other brief production anomalies, and there were other anomalies. For example, the cost of electricity has always been a factor and production even fell a few times when prices rose, even in the first half of the 20th century. But then prices fell back down and production rose again.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Once again, I guess you're right. I'll give the Excel a view. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In the second half of the 20th century, the Space Race began. Earth's first artificial satellite, launched in 1957, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres, and almost all subsequent spacecraft have been made of aluminium." First off, the second sentence's grammar is off. Second and more importantly, explicitly stating that the Space Race began is completely unnecessary information. IMPLYING that it began resulting in the need of aluminium for satellites and spacecraft is COMPLETELY necessary information. If you really feel the need to let the reader know that the Space Race is in progress in that moment in history, which I personally would, simply say something along the lines of, "Earth's first artificial satellite, which launched in 1957 for the Space Race, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres. Since then, almost all subsequent spacecraft have been created using aluminium parts." I personally would also include "which launched in 1957 for the Space Race beginning earlier that year" to set a time frame and to link the launching of Sputnik 1 with the beginning of the Space Race. But that's just me and my grain of salt.

  You have a good point in saying that we don't need to announce the Space Race. I see no need to mention the Space Race at all as this is not an article on the Cold War; the fact that could matter is that the humanity is making a new achievement by entering the space, but the geopolitical squabble around it is irrelevant in this story about aluminum (and not geopolitics).--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  All good now. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe a see also page as well, linking to Aluminium and any other "history of (Element X) articles (such as History of fluorine)?

  I see little point in linking to aluminium as linked Aluminium is literally the first word in this article. A list of other History of X articles could work but I can only think of history of fluorine (to which I contributed during back when the text was in the main fluorine article) and, obviously, this one. I'll have this list of one, though.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  You're right about the aluminium, my bad. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's practically my list. Once these get finished, I'll be sure to reread the article to look for anything else I could find to help. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for taking your time. I hope you enjoyed the article overall.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  No problem, I'm at about a 97% 100% support! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been busy lately and it took me whole five days to reply. Glad to see that this sorted out even in my absence.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys during the reign of the first Jin dynasty (265–420)" - the footnote provided seems to focus on this not being possible, suggest rewording

  On the contrary, the first sentence in the note explains how production of aluminum alloys could be possible, the second sentence explains why production of pure aluminum wasn't possible, and the third sentence adds a slightly different approach (could be produced, but a little later) by an expert. I'd gladly change something to avoid any future confusion but I don't see what I could do without adding more linking words ("The researchers think this was possible because alumina was plentiful...") that take more space but add no more meaning. If you think something needs to be done, could you please suggest a direction to look into?--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Small alum mines were worked in Catholic Europe" - source?

  I reworded this a little and added a source.--R8R (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Source for footnote e?

  This is purely my own observation after I looked for the papers mentioned in the work. However, the note used to explicitly say it only referred to the mentioned in the article works (and so the sources were the works themselves). I've added that detail back.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN6: pages?

  Added.--R8R (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ranges in titles should use endashes

  I see you are referring to ref 12 (changed). I looked through the reference list and found only one more occurrence of a ranges in the title (ref 68), which was properly formatted; if there are any others that require fixing, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also FN86. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how edition statements are formatted

  Changed all to |edition=n.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Be consistent in whether a plain number is used - compare FN1 and 82. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ref 1 was defined outside of the article; that's why my search for "|edition=" in the wiki text missed it. Defined it within the article with the edition formatting changed.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN23: other refs don't include publishers for journals

  I agree, that's superfluous. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include access dates

  I thought the rule was to include access dates when the source is not available online and does not have a unique identifier (such as DOI). I was surprised at how many references broke this rule; in fact, all of them did! So I removed all access dates; if I should've kept any, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN34: provided link gives a publication date of 2015

  Changed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN40 is incomplete

  Replaced it with a new one.--R8R (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN43: other books don't include location

  I've always thought that was superfluous, so I've removed this location.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN48: link gives date of 2006 and edition statement is missing

  Changed and added.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN57 is incomplete

  Replaced it with a new one.--R8R (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN60 should include publisher. Same with 69

  Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN65: edition statement should be separate from title

  Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN66 should cite the specific chapter of interest

  Modified the reference.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN68: link gives a different publisher

  Changed the publisher.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN65 and 70 are the same

  Well spotted; combined these.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• What makes FN73 a high-quality reliable source? 81? 82?

  (Now refs 72, 80, and 81) Ref 72 seems fine to me despite its overly catchy title as this is clearly a history book (as opposed to a fantasy book) that refers exactly to the time period in question, but I'll look for a replacement that focuses on the military aspect of World War II. Ref 80 is a research paper; I don't see why it got your attention in the first place. I'll look for a replacement for ref 81.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Found a worthy replacement for ref 72. Will look for a replacement for ref 81 later.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  I formatted ref 82 and removed the claim backed by ref 83 and the ref itself.--R8R (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)--R8R (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  What was FN80 is now FN93, which is a research paper but one that doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed? What is the author's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  I see. Good point. Replaced it with a work of the U.S. federal government.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN75: author formatting doesn't match other books. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  (Now ref 74) Changed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well this is one of the longest-running FACs I can recall (albeit a pretty specialised topic) so if Nikki can check responses/actions and R8R can tie up any loose ends ASAP that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Should be good to go on sourcing now. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  @FAC coordinators: This FAC was started 2 months, 21 days ago and it is still open. It looks like it's generally positive towards promotion of the article, there has been no opposition to that. Ian Rose suggested I "tie up any loose ends" and I think I did that fairly soon after the call, didn't I? I've checked a few times and I can't find anything left. But if there actually is something that I've missed and that's the reason why all three of you are still keeping this review open, I will immediately fix that so this long-standing review doesn't go to waste. Please give me the directions and I will make the improvements very shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2018 [8].

---

California Pacific International Exposition half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin whose high mintage proved to be its undoing as relatively few sold. Unusually, the sponsors went back to Congress and got a second year of striking, but again, most wound up melted. Still, it's a beautiful design.Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Note: this will be transcluded tomorrow morning.

• Support

Nice article in an impressive series. Two very minor points to consider, neither of which affect my support:

Lead

• "the reverse buildings": I stumbled over this slightly; perhaps "the reverse shows buildings"?

Production

• I was slightly confused by what the "1935–S half dollar" is and it took a little time and searching before it became clear. Maybe just a word or two to introduce the term (possibly when describing the mint mark)?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a, lead and first bit.

• Comma splice: "Its obverse depicts Minerva and other elements of the Seal of California, the reverse shows buildings from the California Pacific International Exposition (held 1935–1936) which the coin was issued to honor." A semicolon would fix it.

Fixed.

• "Left with over 180,000 pieces unsold as sales ground to a halt, the Exposition Commission went back to Congress for additional legislation so it could return the unsold pieces and have new coins, dated 1936, struck to sell in the second year of the fair's run."—"as sales ground to a halt" is dramatic and appears to mark something that isn't explained. If that's explained later, why not avoid raising a big question-mark in the lead? The sentence is quite long enough without. "Melting" is mentioned only for the second, 1936 tranche; but I presume the unsold 1935 version was melted too. I had to read it several times to work it out. If "many pieces of both dates were melted" in the final sentence were earlier in the paragraph, it would be much easier to apprehend. It begs the question of why there was such overestimation, twice. That's what is surprising historically ... but I had to think too hard to extract that. Also, you might think it's obvious, but the mint needed the excess metal to make the 1936 version. Can it be easier for readers?

There was often such overestimation, especially when the coin was proposed to be sold at a fair. The physical metal from the first coins were not necessarily used to make the second, indeed probably not because of the delay while the metal went through the processes. It was probably used to make other coins, but we wouldn't know what.

• "One of the largest expositions of its kind, it was situated on 1,400 acres (570 ha), and cost $20 million. The fair attracted some 3.75 million people during its two-year run"—it was held? 3.75 million visitors?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm suggesting situated -> held, and people -> visitors. Tony (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The prose generally looks ok from a very quick look through. I'm sure I'd find more niggles, though. Tony (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly so. Thanks for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Spot-check, 1a, in "Production, distribution, and collecting":

• "the mintage of a quarter million coins, far in excess of some other issues of the era, meant that ..." – not prose, but query over whether a reference (or link) is needed for the "other" numbers.

Not really, the motivation for not buying the coins is discussed in the sources.

• Two instances of sentence-initial "Accordingly, ..." close by. I think the second one isn't needed. The first one doesn't need a comma, either.

I've changed the first to "Thus," I think the second one does need some sort of introduction as a bridge from the activities of the previous paragraph, thus the "Accordingly,"

• Commas can be a personal choice, sure, but why not unbump the first one here: "Coin collectors would view this as a new variety, and possibly buy both, and the melting of the returned coins would decrease the supply and (hopefully) increase the attractiveness of the remaining 1935-S specimens."

Good thought. I've done that.

• "G. Aubrey Davidson, chairman of the Exposition Commission, wrote to Acting Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly on May 16, 1936,"—chairman, but caps for Acting Director? Simpler to downcase all, I think.

Director of the Mint is something I generally capitalize, even though the full title would be "Director of the United States Mint". I think caps for that title (including the acting) look best, and it's how the sources do it. I know they don't bind us, but I'm minded to go that way.

• Fast coins? "asking that the coins (which were to be struck at the Denver Mint and bear its mint mark "D") be expedited"

Tweaked.

• "as heavy traffic was expected at the fair around Memorial Day at the end of May."—cars or buses?

Changed to "attendance"

• There's a lot of struck, strike, striking all at once. And this is very confusing: "The striking at the Denver Mint made the California Pacific half dollar the first commemorative to be struck at San Francisco and at Denver, but not at Philadelphia, and the only pre-1954 commemorative with that distinction." Please simplify and split up a bit.

It's sometimes hard to find an effective synonym for "Struck". "Minted" is the obvious but given that the striking takes place in a mint, sometimes I can't use that. I've changed a few.

• "less than 30,000 of the 1936-D had been sold"—fewer.

OK

• Mint Mint. And Davidson was blaming thus, not suggesting to Ross that this be the public story? It's unclear: "On January 27, 1937, Davidson wrote to the Director of the Mint, Nellie Tayloe Ross, asking if the Mint would accept some 150,000 coins for refund, with the glut blamed on having a relatively short period to sell them."

Yes, that was his excuse, but obviously that doesn't fully add up, had they had three times the time they still would not have sold all the coins. But I suppose he had to say something like that. I've altered the Mint/Mint

• this This, and a slightly awkward within-sentence quoting: Swiatek, in his 2012 volume on commemoratives, stated that this was "to create the appearance of demand and future rarity. This didn't work."

Fixed.

Tony (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Up to date again. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Well up to the unflagging standard of Wehwalt's coin articles. Clear, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. I have tried to find something to quibble about and the best I can come up with is "a number of medieval gold coins" – which is a bit vague, but if that's what the source says, so be it. I should like to put it on record that the sentence "A grizzly bear is to the left of Minerva" has made my day. We don't get that sort of thing on our coins in Britain. Tim riley talk 12:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Like Tim, I couldn't find anything worth quibbling over Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the reviews and supports. Tim, I am traveling now and do not have immediate access to the source, but I don't think the source, which tends towards pithiness, would have gone into greater detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moise

Have read through twice and made a few small edits. This is well written and I support on prose. Moisejp (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support, and for the article improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I'll pick up the review on the sources. Be with you a little later in the day. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

• All good, aside from Authorize recoinage of 50-cent pieces in connection needs a 'subscription' tag, and the two Yeoman editions are published by "Whitman Publishing" and "Whitman Publishing, LLC", in Atlanta, Georgia and Atlanta, GA, both of which you should standardise.

Scope and reliability

• As far as I can tell from examining the background of the sources/publishers, all sources used are reliable and high quality.
• Searches (Google Books Internet Archive and JSTOR) show two other possible sources that are unused here. I suspect you've already considered them, and found them wanting against things you've used, but if you could confirm that is the case I'd be obliged

• Numismatic notes & monographs (1938) – Page 123
• The Numismatist – Volume 121, Issues 1-6 – Page 44

Spot checks

• I don't have access to any of these sources, as they seem not to be readable on Google Books, or through the Amazon 'Look Inside' function, so would you be able to send me a photo or scan of the following just for a quick check:

• Bowers, pp. 313–315
• Swiatek, pp. 260 and 261
• Swiatek & Breen, p. 38.
• Vermeule, pp. 190–191

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm traveling at present and don't have the books with me. Can you check via Google books or similar? As for The Numismatist, can you give me a year and month?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• 2008 is the year, but I can't see the month. The Google Books link (only a snippet view from here) is here, which may help.

I didn't have much luck accessing the pages on Google Books, but I'll run through them again to see if I can pick same of them up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Added one more point on the formatting for you. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at The Numismatist article (June 2008). I think I looked at it at the time. It's an article on Aitken, which has about four paragraphs on the California piece, none of which breaks any ground away from the existing sources. Numismatic Notes and Queries is actually David Bullowa's 1938 work on commemoratives, that I've cited in other articles, but was not aware was on JSTOR. I've added a quote box and used it in the article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the downloads of the Congressional sources. I've done the spot checks on these, and they cover the information that has been cited for, with no close paraphrasing, etc. Formatting, scope and reliability, and spot checks now all good: Source review passed on that basis. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are appropriately licensed
• However File:Seal of California.svg has a redundant PD-US-not renewed license that could be profitably eliminated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Out of caution, I'm going to leave the tag alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2018 [9].

---

John/Eleanor Rykener

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Of John "also known as Eleanor" Rykener almost nothing is known; yet, in some ways, they are a relevant, if not modern, figure. Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business (in their eyes) with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening in Winter 1394, Rykener's case is an important source for modern-day historians and sociologists studying late the medieval English understanding of, and approach to, sex and gender. I think they would be a worthy—if somewhat niche!—addition to the FA stable, and to that end I am very grateful for the support it has already received. Big shouts, particularly, must go out to the one like Usernameunique, for an extremely thorough GA review, and also to those stalwarts at Peer Review: picking up Brianboulton, Ceoil, J Milburn, Tim riley, et SchroCat. Looking forward also to hearing from others: all input and suggestions welcome. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this article's previous doomed candidacy, having been advised that it was ready to go, it subsequently turned out that about as ready as Æthelred. Still, that was then, this is now, and I think my closing remark then is still relevant also: The irony that medieval London appears more sympathetic to transvestite sex-workers than Britain throughout most of the twentieth century will not, I imagine, be lost on anyone. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique

Support: I had my say at GA, and this article has only gotten better since then. It's well researched, well written, and comprehensive. The article was already in good shape when nominated the first time. It's failure, I think, was due primarily to minor errors (e.g., typos, and commas that should have been periods) that jumped out at a reader, but that were cosmetic rather than substantive. These are happily corrected this time around, meaning there is nothing to detract from the core of the article, which remains extremely strong. Can't wait to see this with a gold star and at TFA. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Usernameunique and also for your excellent GA review! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, Serial Number 54129. Minor note: footnotes 31 and 37 don't work, and did you intend for footnotes 20 and 65 to be without page numbers? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Yes, I was seeing who's awake Excellent, many thanks for catching those!  :) I've attended to them, a series of typoos and skintags from that earlier reorg under Iridescent I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cursory look from JC

• I was surprised that the article title has not been the topic of any significant discussion in the past. It seems to me that "John Rykener" is the WP:COMMONNAME by all measures, including incoming searches, usage in scholarly sources, and Google hits, which produce about twice as many results for "John Rykener" as "Eleanor Rykener." The naming criteria, specially as they relate to conciseness, dictate that a title should be no longer or more convoluted than is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish the subject, so do you think we really need both names in the title? I'll note that the slash is quite indistinct to my eyes on the Monobook skin, and nearly disappears unless I focus with somewhat unreasonable effort.

Just to say, I have no actual preference: this seemed a valid compromise. I believe it was discussed (at some point!) on the talk page.

• Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner - "tentatively" connotes that confirmation is forthcoming, which seems unlikely given how long it's been since this all transpired. Do you anticipate that historians will have a more conclusive answer in the future?

Well; I wouldn't really bet against it—it's only been around 20 years, so plenty of time for more stuff to be (re-)found (as this was!). But happy to discuss, as it's not fundamental to either the sentence or the point, I know.

• Rykener told his interrogators that he was introduced to sexual contact with men by Elizabeth Brouderer - this uses a lot of words to say relatively little. There must be a way to state Brouderer's role more clearly and concisely. Was she really the first to break the news to Rykener that sex with a man was possible? Did she arrange his first such encounters?

I'll look at tweaking the wording. As to your specific questions, the first of course can't be known, but, yes, according to his later statement, she did—in her house.

• "Slept with" seems at odds with the MoS's attitude toward euphemisms, but it isn't an issue I've had to contend with, so I'm not sure whether it's customary in biographies.

That's an absolutely fair point: I'm not particularly keen on it myself, but of course one both wants to avoid repetition and unnecessary mentions of anal sex. Or even sex in general; after all (one of the scholars points out later), we don't know what the encounters meant to Rykener, so I suppose we needn't limit ourselves to considering it solely sexual behaviour. Thoughts? Basically, if I could've thought of a better wording, I would have used it!

• where he both prostituted himself and worked as an embroideress - no need for "both."
• Three consecutive sentences use the same construction "...<city>, where he..." – it becomes jarring.
  • How about "Rykener spent some time in summer 1394 in Oxford, continuing to prostitute himself and working as an embroideress; he also stayed in Beaconsfield for a while. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there. Rykener returned to London via Burford, where he worked as a barmaid

"—completely rejigged the structure.

• He was also in Beaconsfield for a while, where he said he had a sexual relationship with a woman. - dangling modifier. Also, was it in Beaconsfield where he had the relationship or where he said he had it?

Ah!—see above

• However, no charges were ever brought against him. - this is somewhat more definitive than the "no evidence" statement in the opening paragraph. Which is more precise?

Ah, point. The latter is too strong. I've adjusted it to "However, it appears that no charges were ever brought against him; or at least, no records have been found suggesting so", which is more accurate.

• because of what it tells us about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues. - avoid breaking the fourth wall.

I always think of Billy Ray Valentine! How about, "Historians of social, sexual and gender history...tells them"?

• Numerous positions have been taken on Rykener. - Double entendre aside, you could probably eliminate that segue and simply delve into the contrasting views. At the very least, it's an example (one of several I've noticed) of uncomfortable passive voice.

Ah, the Iri-tps!  :) It's an accidental DE, to be sure; but I've got rid of it. Although, how about adding something to the previous sentence, so it reads along the lines of "...preconceptions of sex and gender issues, and have identified various themes in the case"?

• In its portrayal of medieval sexuality, one historian, J. A. Schultz - surely "his" instead of "its"? You could also tighten this slightly by simply saying "historian J. A. Shultz", and then removing "Another," from the following sentence.

Ah, right: "its" was referring to the case itself, rather than to the man himself? But have tightened Schulz and lost the another.

• viewed the affair as of - this is one of the rare cases where I'd advocate for adding a word ("as being of").

Done

• sees it as illustrating the difficulties the law has in addressing things it cannot describe. - this is really nebulous and somewhat tangential, especially for the lead. "Addressing," "things," "describe" are all imprecise, almost meaningless word choices.

I'm certainly happy to reword if you can suggest a means to strengthen it; the problem is, I think, that the entire case is vague, and almost nothing is known. Even that which is believed to be known is mostly extrapolated!

My impression from the lead is that the prose flows poorly and suffers from ambiguity. That said, I've always found the lead to be the most difficult section to write, so it may not be representative of the article's substantial and apparently well-researched body. I'll take a closer look as time allows. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so. Thanks very much for your review, Juliancolton, it's certainly provided food for thought, and I expect I'll be able to address most of the points you raise (on top of those already dealt with here). Hope all's well—cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. Fascinating article on a fascinating subject. I made a few edits to tidy up a little, mostly around formatting. The important ones of these are:

• You may want to see if you can find a replacement link for "Corpus Christi plays", which was linked to Corpus Christi (play), a 1998 work that depicts Jesus and the Apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas;
• I've taken out the curly quotes around the boxed quotes: these should only ever be used for pull-quotes, and you'll face nothing but grief from the MoS people for having them as such. You may face some future opposition from them anyway for having five such boxed quotes in there (trust me, I've been there and still bear the scars), so you should look at each of the five boxed quotes and see whether it needs to be outside the run of text, or whether it can be smoothly incorporated as a quote or blockquote instead. If you think it's better as a box, keep it as such, but make sure you have good reasons for doing so;
• I've also de-italicised the source names on the boxed quotes. We don't tend to italicise names, except under certain conditions, and using any pre-formatted template should mean that you should be able to use it without additional formatting.

That's it - very minor formatting aside, this is another very interesting piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your tweaks, SchroCat, and for your notes at PR! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Carabinieri

I've only skimmed the article, but I have one question. The article consistently uses male pronouns to refer to Rykener. However, it also uses female versions of gender-specific nouns such as barmaid or embroideress. Isn't that a little confusing or is there something I'm missing?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers, Carabinieri! ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• What I mean is that those should probably be changed to embroiderer and bartender. Don't you think?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, apologies, Carabinieri, I thought you were making a passing comment. It's a good point, though, and it did cross my mind while writing it; the reason I stuck with it was primarily that the sources gender the work themselves. Now, this is only my interpretation, of course, but I suspect they do so in order to emphasise that—in their assessment—Rykener was not just "doing X job dressed as a woman", but "living as a woman while doing a woman's work"; the footnote, I think, points out that both jobs were predominantly women's' jobs (if that's the way to put it). Do you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead: 1a

• "all that is known about his life comes from his interrogation by the Mayor and aldermen of London"—consider "all that is known of his life", but either way is OK. "Mayor" would be more comfortable as "mayor", especially in the vicinity of "aldermen". Smirk: those men are among the first you'd suspect of buying sex from Rykener ... they'd certainly have the cash. The irony.

Indeed! And verging on tragic that no RS makes the connection. I've pre-emptively gone through the article changing Mayor to mayor, except in cases where it's prefixed by Lord; and as for Mayoral; tsk.

• The scan is horribly small and indecipherable. Did you experiment with a larger size?

Point. So I have, for examples, doubled it in size, and also just by 50%. I think the first is rather massive; the 50% increase is better, no?

• "thus" could be ditched—the causality is obvious.

Lost.

• "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns." What does "various" do here? There's no various for the women et al. "Men" already means two or more.

True; gone.

• "some time in summer"—unfortunate jingle.

Changed to "Rykener spent part of summer 1394"?

• "continuing to prostitute himself"—hmmm ... in that grammatical form it's become very pejorative (and broadly scoped, far beyond the original meaning).

I agree, Tony; it's a reflection of my trying to avoid euphemisms while avoiding repetition. How bout "...working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress"?

• "However, it appears that"—Much simpler and more engaging is "But it appears that". Forget what you were told in front of a blackboard.

Ah, WP:MISSSNODGRASS, of course! Cheers, changed.

• "Nothing definite is known of Rykener after his interrogation, although he has been tentatively identified as a John Rykener imprisoned by and escaping from the Bishop of London in 1399."—Isn't this contradictory? 1395 ... 1399 ... after?

Ah—this is trying to say that, since we cannot be sure that the later JR is the same as the 1394 JR, we, therefore, cannot be definitive as to the latter's later life. Does that make sense?

It's unclear. You could remove "although" and replace by a semicolon. Tony (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense; done.

• "because of what it reveals about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues"—"issues" is a very recent expression and concept. Do we need it? How does "preconceptions" differ from "conceptions" here? Why not "medieval attitudes/views"?

OK—going with views.

• "J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as being of greater significance to historians than other, more famous medieval love stories"—oh, was this a love story? Why "other"?

That makes a lot of sense, and as such, I've removed both other and love, which tightens the sentence a bit too.

• "Modern interest in John/Eleanor Rykener has not been confined to academia. Rykener has appeared as a character in at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction, and his story has been adapted for the stage."—I'm wondering whether ditching the first sentence will lose anything useful. Up to you.

Well: I don't particularly mind, but its (intended, if not achieved!) purpose was to act as a bridge between the heavy, academic works and a more popular use in puppetry and detective stories. Without it, I thought it would sound as though we were suggesting they were all comparable.

Needs work. I hope this rises to FA standard. Tony (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: as of course I do, and as long as your assistance doesn't waste your own time, I 'm sure it will...this edit addressed your points above; the question as to how well—is up to you! Either way, I really appreciate you looking in and putting some meat on the bone. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• How come in both maps the red dot is labelled on the map itself as well as the caption, when none of the others are? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh—well spotted, NM, I've removed them. They look much simpler now, I have to say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support; I had my say at the prior FAC and the PR. I think this is a great article, and a fantastic topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in, JM, and thank you very much for your help in getting this back here. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

This is the version being reviewed; as usual, I'm nitpicking hard. No image/source reviews conducted. I've included as suggestions the minor rewordings and tweakings which I'd normally make directly, in case there's a reason you don't want them thus tweaked.

Lead

Warning in advance that this is going to be very nitpicky, but as I know you're (wearily) aware the WMF's have conducted some research concluding that many readers only read the lead before skipping ahead, so I'll be pulling up things that appear confusing even if they're explained in the body text.

1. Since we know what the act was, we should say so, even if it means frightening the children by saying "sodomy" in the first sentence; performing a sex act reads like a tabloid euphemism, and it is of major significance to readers whether the act was sodomy (and consequently an offence against Catholic teaching) or some kind of exposure (a civil but not a religious offence). We use the word "sodomy" later on, so it's not as if we're intentionally withholding it to avoid tripping abuse filters.

   I agree: it originally said "...arrested in December 1394 for putatively having anal sex with another man, John Britby", but was opposed at the PR. Prefer the original? (I haven't actually changed it yet, awaiting your Considered Opinion)

   Just say sodomy already. "Sex act" is very coy, and I was thinking, did they have gerbils back then? Ceoil (talk)

2. Sodomy was … usually prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts—in this period, wasn't sodomy only prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts? As I understand it the Buggery Act was a 16th century creation of Thomas Cromwell during the Submission of the Clergy, and before that buggery and sodomy were illegal under canon, not civil law.

   Yes, agreed.

3. "Procurer" should probably be explained, or at least wikilinked, on its first appearance. For someone unfamiliar with English legal terminology, it's not obvious that it's a synonym for "pimp", and if one only knows the word "procure" as a synonym for "obtain" Brouderer … may have acted as his procurer could just as well mean that she did his shopping for him.

   An over-rigid adherance to MOS:LWQ on my part, I think. Notwithstanding that she may also have done his shopping for him  :)

4. He had sex with men …and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns seems a bit clumsy to me—were these priests and nuns not men and women? Suggest something along the lines of "He is known to have had sex with both men and women, including priests and nuns".

   Thanks—I've nicked that.

5. Rykener spent part of summer 1394 in Oxford, working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress—why "embroideress"? Since we're using "he" throughout it's not a Bradley/Chelsea Manning case where we need to include both names but defer to the subject's preferred pronouns wherever possible, so why not say "embroiderer"? It's hardly as if tailoring were an exclusively female profession, then or now.

   Carbonarie also raises this above: can I point you to my reply for details. As I say, I'm not particularly wedded to either fashion; it is as it is at the moment because of the sources—100% of which use the gendered pronoun (probably, as I say, for emphasis). Even so, I'm certainly open to change. Or a footnote—but I think there might be enough of those already...

6. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there; is "there" Oxford or Beaconsfield, and is that where he had the sexual relationship or where he talked about it? Assuming you mean the former, I'd suggest something like "He later mentioned that while in Oxford )or Beaconsfield) he had a sexual relationship with a woman".

   Right: I've nicked your phrasing too, but dropped the "while" since this is now the first mention of Beaconsfield.

7. Where the hell is Burford? I doubt one person in a hundred in England is aware, let alone Wikipedia's global audience; say "Oxfordshire" or "nearby" to make it clear to the readers that he wasn't touring the country.

   Done.

8. where he worked as a barmaid—likewise, did he do this in character as Eleanor? If not, he was a barman. (IMO in this article we should use gender-neutral terms wherever possible, as the constant flipping between male and female terms makes it a little hard to follow; "he worked in a bar" would suffice just as well and avoid the issue.)

   Yes, it seems to be believed very specifically that he is in character (again, they are probably emphasising). Is "he" gender neutral? It's been a bloody tricky balancing act from the start, tbh.

9. On his return to London, he had paid encounters around the Tower of London; this is an extreme nitpick, but in this period the Tower wasn't in London (it guarded the approach to London, rather than actually being in London; it wasn't actually annexed to Greater London until 1889 and to this day isn't in the City of London). That's an extreme bit of pedantry, but because the City had (and has) a separate legal system to the surrounding area, and Old Tower Without (the area surrounding the Tower but not actually within its walls) was a part of the Liberties of the Tower of London which also had its own courts and legal system, it does actually make a difference on an article which is ultimately about old court reports.

   That is of course brilliant. Fantastic! Yet: I'm not quite sure how to introduce the notion without going into a microcosmic level of detail. I'm only really using it as a geographic marker, just so readers get the idea as to where he was working...any thoughts?

   During his return to the city, he paid encounters around the Tower of London? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   "he had paid encounters near the Tower of London, just outside the City"? ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   Nicked that text, Iridescent, thakns again; It might be worth incorporating the detail into a footnote (another!), to explain why: general readers are, after all, surely going to assume that the *ahem* Tower of London is in London  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

10. Rykener was finally arrested with Britby on the evening of Sunday, 11 December—the 'finally' implies either like there was some kind of manhunt going on, or that he'd never been arrested before, rather than that this was a routine arrest. Do we know he'd never been arrested before?

    No we don't and you're right, it doesn't follow from any one earlier event.

11. Assuming at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction is a reference to A Burnable Book, "best-selling" is stretching hype to the limit (it's ranked #1,115,640 on Amazon, and a quick Google search on "a burnable book" best-selling doesn't appear to find a single review or other RS using the term to describe it).

    Ah! My paid editing by Holsinger for his book is revealed! Sorry about that: a subconscious reflection of the fact that I thought it was a jolly caper. Removed: "work of popular historical fiction" is probably neutral?

Background

1. Is there any way we could find another map? File:England south location map.svg shows the European Union's NUTS regions, not the historic (or even the modern) county boundaries or anything else which any normal reader would understand. Aside from anything else, in five months and 27 days those boundaries will have no meaning at all; they're also actively misleading, as the one thing which readers might recognise—the boundaries of Greater London—show the vastly expanded boundaries of 1965, not the old City of London or even the Middlesex boundary, and consequently make Beaconsfield and Bishops Stortford appear far closer to London than they actually were.

   I'll be honest: this map (actually, maps here generally) consistently give me a headache—especially these things that need to be custom made. Would File:Southern England.png this be OK? I've done that myself, but it still needs *attempts to talk a foreign language* to be turned into a lua module or something?

   Paging Maproom ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   The map currently in the article seems to me to serve its purpose well enough, despite the anachronsitic (and soon-to-be-obsolete) boundaries. Maybe there's something in Commons that would be a better background for the coloured dots, by showing the roads of the time; but I've failed to find one in a brief search. (I'm glad I've been pinged – the article itself is fascinating.) Maproom (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Shame, Maproom, I went to lot of trouble doing that plain version  :) thanks for popping over though, and I'm glad you like the article! ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2. Definite {{citation needed}} for Prostitution was illegal in fourteenth-century London. Brothel keeping was banned in the City of London by Edward II, but that's not the same thing at all, while brothel-keeping was still not only legal but encouraged and licenced by the authorities in Bankside, a two-minute walk over the Bridge from the City; the area of the Bankside brothels was under the direct administration of the Bishop of Winchester and in the grounds of Winchester Palace, so the Church presumably wasn't too bothered by it. The distinction between brothel-keeping and prostitution (the former illegal, the latter legal) still exists in England, so this is something you can assume readers will pick up on.

   Yes, I was a little sloppy there: changed to "Prostitution was tightly regulated in fourteenth-century England, and brothels—although not prostitution itself—were illegal in the City of London", wit a source; the accopanying footnote Southwark and elsewhere.

3. Ditto for Prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society; it might technically be true that prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, but it's extremely misleading as the prosecutions were for prostitution without a licence or in areas where it wasn't permitted. (Approx 1.5 million people are arrested each year in the US for drunk driving; it doesn't mean the authorities consider either cars or beer a threat to society.) If you're repeating something a source says, at the very least cite the source and preferably have an "according to…" in the body text.

   ...yes; on reflection, I don't think "the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being" adds anything: I've removed it, so it now reads, more tightly, "Prostitution was perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society", which I think is the imporant element.

4. The thirteenth-century jurist Bracton described [hermaphroditism] as being a third category of people in his Laws and Customs of England is a bit misleading; what he actually said was "Hermaphroditus comparatur masculo tantum vel feminæ tantum secundum prævalescentiam sexus incalescentis" A hermaphrodite is classed with male or female according to the predominance of the sexual organs—i.e., if someone is born with both genitalia go with whichever's bigger, rather than in the sense of "biologically male but choosing to identify as a woman". Unless we're saying that Rykener had both male and female genitalia and that's how he was having sex with men, it's not really relevant here; and I assume we're not saying that, since presumably vaginal intercourse wouldn't have been prosecuted as sodomy.

   Right. In that (corrected) light, it now has even less relevance than it did before  :) so I've tweaked the sentence to read "Hermaphroditism too had a legally recognised status; the thirteenth-century jurist Bracton, for example, had discussed it in his Laws and Customs of England"

Life

1. Pet peeve and not something I'd oppose over, but try to avoid "Black death" when at all possible. It's a relatively modern phrase (the people of the time called it the Great Mortality), and meaningless to anyone who's not already familiar with the term; "a bubonic plague pandemic which killed between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 of the English population in 1348–1349" is wordier but unambiguous, and makes it clear that this was A Big Deal.

   Tricky, as it means tying in with the apprentice stuff. How about "Following the 1348–1349 bubonic plague—which killed between ​1⁄4 and ​1⁄2 of the English population—female apprenticeships had become as common as those for boys, particularly in London"?

   1348–1349 outbreak of bubonic plague Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

2. I don't really understand the whole blackmail plot thing. Was the plan that the customers who thought they were having sex with Alice would wake up next to John, see the beard, and realise they'd been doing a dude, or did John remain in character as Eleanor and convince them that they'd had sex with a woman, just not the woman they'd paid for? Rykener told Philip that Rykener was the wife of an important man in the city implies the latter, but in that case I can't see what the deal was; given that these men were sleeping with prostitutes, if they continued to believe Rykener was female surely "I thought I was having sex with one female prostitute but actually had sex with another female prostitute" isn't much when it comes to blackmail material compared to the Rector of Theydon Garnon being in a brothel behind a mental hospital in the first place?

   Sigh. This whole blackmail thing has been another pain in the aris since it started; the sources don't spell it out. In fact, looking over them, it's only one that actually mentions blackmail. Since we can't explain it precisely, and as you've shown it raises more questions than it answers, how about removing the mention of blackmail? I've done so; in fact, now I'm wondering what that detail involving Alice is actually worth. How about cutting that too?

   It probably ought to stay—of the 714 words of the sole source He further said that a certain Elizabeth Bronderer first dressed him in women's clothing; she also brought her daughter Alice to diverse men for the sake of lust, placing her with those men in their beds at night without light, making her leave early in the morning and showing them the said John Rykener dressed up in women's clothing, calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her. He further said that certain Phillip, rector of Theydon Garnon, had sex with him as with a woman in Elizabeth Bronderer's house outside Bishopsgate, at which time Rykener took away two gowns of Phillip', and when Phillip requested them from Rykener he said that he was the wife of a certain man and that if Phillip wished to ask for them back he would make his husband bring suit against him. comes to 141 words—i.e., this is 20% of all we know and all we will ever know about Rykener. This is ultimately an article about how how the writers of secondary sources project their own prejudices onto a figure about which very little is known rather than a biography of Rykener per se, so it really needs to cover everything that's been written about him and if a source calls it a blackmail plot, we need to mention that. I still don't understand how this plot was going to work, since if they weren't disclosing that Eleanor was a man, "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Eleanor" is no more scandalous than "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Alice". ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   @Iridescent: Okay; well, it's sourced to Roxeth, and I can't get to the library for a bit, so I've asked at WP:RX; hopefully he goes into more detail as to the mechanics of the so-called blackmail. But I agree that it's hard to see how it was worked. Standing by. ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   On doing some overthinking, I can see a way that it could have worked would be that Alice posed as a poor street urchin and "Eleanor" posed as a wealthy noblewoman; given the conventions of a time a priest caught having sex with a penniless prostitute would have only led to minor admonition from the Bishop, but a priest caught having sex with the wife of a wealthy and powerful man could have faced serious consequences. It still doesn't explain why Elizabeth would have chosen a man to play the part of the noblewoman, since presumably getting an actual woman to do the business would have had far less chance of the punter realising that the substitution had taken place. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Iridescent, I think the only one overthinking things here is probably Roxeth—! ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   To be fair, "here's a 714-word document, go and expand it into a book" must have been the commission from hell. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Eh, it's a full-length thing on medieval deviance generally, so he's got plenty of material. The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells springs to mind  :) anyway, to business: the good people of WP:RX (Pajz particularly) very kindly came through with the source page.

   Roxeth's suggestion is that (in my interpretation) sodomy is worse than infidelity, so good blackmail material:

   "...and one Elizabeth Brouderer, who dressed him in women’s clothes and probably used him in order to blackmail a number of men. Elizabeth had prostituted her own daughter Alicia and made sure she left the men alone in bed early in the morning. Then Elizabeth had shown the customers John/Eleonora, and claimed that they had really slept with him. Although this portion of the report breaks off here, it is not difficult to imagine the purpose of this deceit: the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy, thus leaving them open to blackmail."

   So that's the blackmail suggestion—and he makes it clear, I think, that it's his suggestion, rather than in the original source. I suppose if I replaced my unclear comments about blackmail with this quote, it would then become self-explanatory; or, at least, if readers still didn't understand, then they would know who to blame...thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 18:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

   Retroactivate Iridescent :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

   But "the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy" doesn't tally with calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her … he said that he was the wife of a certain man, which implies that the clients never discovered 'Eleanor' was actually a man. The more I think about it, the more I think the only way to approach this section is to actually put down the 141 words verbatim, and then offer Rexroth and Goldberg's suggestions for what they respectively think was going on here. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

   Iridescent, I've done something along those lines; what d'you think? In the course of doing so, looking at other writer's opinions on the whole blackmail thing just made it even clearer how little they (probably) agree with the theory—the silence, as it were, was deafening! ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Another "embroideress"; again, same issue I raised regarding the lead section; was he posing as a woman while working, and if so why given that a male embroiderer would probably have earned more than a female doing the same job and would certainly have been treated with more respect? We've already established that the plague had broken down gender boundaries in the workplace so it wouldn't have been a case of "only women can do that job".

   Indeed, the same answer as above: it's kinda consequential to the nature of the article, I suspect.

4. Just before Michaelmas 1394; I fear you're being over-optimistic that Wikipedia's readers will be familiar with the medieval liturgical calendar. How about "In September 1394"?

   Done.

5. Again per my comments in the lead, does employed him as a barmaid mean that he was now in character as Eleanor full-time? Just because bar work was traditionally female, that doesn't mean it was an exclusively female profession; the literature of England is filled with (male) innkeepers and waiters. If he was living as Eleanor full-time by this point, it should be spelled out as much as the sources allow, as that changes the narrative entirely from that of a huckster and con-artist with a scam involving dressing as a woman, to that of a transgender individual in the modern sense trying to live as a female in a male-dominated society. (Rykener said, he had a sexual relationship, as a man, with a woman called Joan Matthew implies that he wasn't living as a female, so was he actually working as a female in his day jobs as a barkeeper and embroiderer?)

   Well, as said earlier, the sources do consider him as living as a woman (at times—I suppose they can't be too definitive) on occasions, but also when he wanted, as a man. Actually, it wasn't my intention to portray him as being a full-time con-artist, and the sources certainly don't. I think the only time anything like that occurred was at Brouderer's house—and that was at her instigation rather than Rykener's. Now I've removed the mention of blackmail (your point above)

6. Probably dressed heavily against London winter weather—is this actually from a source? Having the dubious privilege of living in a notorious red light district, I can testify that the ladies of the night stick to their uniform of thigh-high boots, barely-a-belt miniskirts and black bra under a fishnet top in even the foulest of weather.

   I don't think he'd be wearing that  :) but yes, it is sourced Carolyn Dinshaw, who says, "it was no doubt cold that night, and Eleanor was no doubt bundled up". Having said that: I agree the reality is more ambiguous. Although it (probably) was cold, being London in December, as you say, the latter doesn't necessarily flow automatically from the former. Since Dinshaw is guessing, I'll remove it—it's not particularly important (I put it in originally as a human element).

7. Eleanor was an uncommon name by the fourteenth century—is that really the case? It was still common enough for the king to give it to his daughter.

   I've clarified that it was specifically uncommon for ordinary people.

8. The "unmentionable" act they were accused of committing has been assumed to be anal sex—is it Goldberg 2014 who's assuming this, or Wikipedia? Given that Britby was unaware of Rykener's true sex, isn't it more likely that Rykener was performing oral sex on him (also classed as sodomy under Catholic law)?

   It's Goldberg's voice; oddly, in fact, although IIRC a couple of others also mention anal sex, none of them mention oral: which—now you've pointed it out—is actually *WP:OR alert* more likely, I would have thought: much easier (and warmer!) for everyone, and also making it much more likely that, as he claimed, Britby wouldn't ever get to discover Rykener's true gender. All that considered, it's a shame we don't have a source for it.

Political context and later events

1. The name itself is sufficiently unusual, to have allowed researchers to speculate—is this from a source? It's not that unusual a name when you take into account that medieval England tended to spell names phonetically and that London was a Hanseatic port, so there would have been a steady stream of Reichners, Reicheners and Rikners passing through from Germany and Scandanavia.

   Eh, it's from Goldberg again; his precise wording is "If Britby is a very unusual name, then Rykener is no less. I have discovered only three other

Rykeners...". It's an excellent point about European versions of the name though, someone should tell him...

Historical significance and scholarship

1. This perceived importance may account for the survival of the record doesn't tally with The Rykener documents were filed with the more usual, and more prosaic, fare of debt and property offences in the previous sentence; if it was just filed with the routine paperwork, it obviously didn't have perceived significance.

   Point. I've struck the entire sentence: I can't find a way of tallying the to positions; and the suggestion of a precedent is in any case vague, and is frankly pointless when of course it's already been said that this is the only case of its kind (so even if it could have set a precedent, it's completely unknown whether it is or not!)

2. I don't get John Rykener's story is of more importance to historians than, for example, that of Tristan and Isolde. Tristan and Isolde is a work of fiction; why is it surprising that historians consider fiction as less important than the historical record?

   Also struck: I have no idea what J. A. Schulz is talking about, and, when you put it like that, it's a bit of a BS remark—at least, our readers could rightfully think so! Since you're the second reviewer to question it, it's gone.

Well, you asked. Don't take the wall of text above as any kind of oppose; this is the kind of line-by-line nitpick I'd normally conduct on the talkpage, not a ransom-note list of demands which if not met will be grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(adding) Meta-point, which you may want to ask one of the techie types about; because of the way MediaWiki works, this isn't actually a page called John/Eleanor Rykener, but a subpage of John called Eleanor Rykener. It won't affect en-wiki as they display and link the same, but may screw up interwiki links, Wikidata, search engines and reusers. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: I'll have to ask about that, if it comes to it: but actually—at least two (I think) reviewers have queried the /slashed/ title now, so I (or anyone, of course) will probably just move it back to JR after this FAC is promoted/archived. Incidentally—do you have an opinion yourself on the best title? Just as part of a straw poll, you might say—nothing binding.
  Thanks very much for your detailed review, Iridescent, I always appreciate them. I've answered (not yet necessarily addressed, though!) all your points, but there's a number where you might be able to advise me further, having seen my explanation. Cheers! Incidentally—you'll see I haven't coloured my text, but you have; I was under the impression that formatting was a no-no, because of page bugs or something? Or have I got it arse over head?! Just curiosity: a bit of colour makes it easer to read, I think.
  Even more incidentally, it occurs to me that nitpicking is a form of delousing; just what my articles need :D ——SerialNumber54129 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Iridescent, I sure did. I'll get back to this tomorrow; there's a few things I can see that we might want to discuss. In the meantime, stories of dissolute (if one is lucky, I suppose!) living in red light districts would liven things up a bit  :) Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

With coloured text boxes, the issue as I understand it is that is screws things up when people print the pages out on a black-and-white printer; the generic quote box template uses a shade of nonprint blue that shows as white or very pale grey when printed. Regarding the title, I'd be inclined to John Rykener, since as I understand it that's what every source calls him, and also the name anyone searching for him will be searching under. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. The 'blackmail plot' problems are an issue arising from the fact that a secondary source significant enough that it can't be disregarded appears to conflict with the primary source on which it's reporting; as such, the issue is with the source not with the sourcing, so it's not something over which I'd oppose. Everything else is "I wouldn't have written it that way" issues rather than actual policy-based grounds for opposition, and I'm not among those who treat "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" as synonymous with "its prose is written exactly the way I'd have written it". ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but thanks very much for all your help with the article. I'm glad we kind of got there in the end: although the situation is still irritatingly unsatisfactory, but I suppose that's a problem of having to rely on secondary sources whose authors don't know what we want them to say! Thanks again, ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

I dont like (fl. 1394) three words in, why not just born; just because you can doesnt mean you have to. Reading though again (was a peer reviewer, I think). Know this is up to 54129's usual interest level standards, so colour me as wearily hoping to see this promoted, if the prose are sorted out. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would seriously trim the notes. Whatever nuggets you hoped to convey for the especially interested are buried in extraneous detail and verbosity. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The (fl. 1394) is part of Wikipedia's house style for when we're unsure of someone's year of birth but we know they were alive at that time; one can't really blame SN54129 for it as if he removed it, someone would just re-insert it citing MOS:APPROXDATE. ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SN54129, your off the hook on this one, although I might have to have a chat with MOS:APPROXDATE. Ceoil (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Update; half ways through and this is much improved since the last time I read it. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, and apologies for ignoring you  :) unintentional! ——SerialNumber54129 06:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, Supporting on prose. Nice work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments

How very different from the homelife of our own dear Queen! An interesting read. I fixed a typo, just a couple of quibbles

• I'm not totally clear whether the Mayoral court could prosecute prostitution, but chose not to do so, or whether it was beyond the court's jurisdiction. I assume the former, just checking.
• Medieval scholar J. A. Schulz is perhaps slightly ambiguous? At first glance he could be a 14th-century writer.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice one, Jimfbleak thanks for finding time, and also supporting. Just FYI your points: firstly, no the latter (Iridescent picked up on that too, so I think it's been clarified?). Second, yes, just "historian" will do. Hope that's all OK! Take care, and thanks again. ——SerialNumber54129 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

Was there a source review anywhere that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I'll pick up on the sources for this one. Will do it in pieces over the next few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Many thanks for this! I've dealt with (most of) your suggestions. For now, anyway... ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

• I made a couple of tweaks to page numbers, from the format 123–45 to the MoS compliant 123–145 – both in the footnotes and in the sources. I think I've caught them all, but best go through to make sure I've not missed any.

I think that's the lot then.

• Check on capitalisation within the sources: we have both "Gender and femininity in medieval England" and "England: Women and Gender" – these should be consistently done

Yes; that was the only one, so I changed it. There's also a newspaper headline.

• You need to be consistent with publishing locations (We have The Early Humiliati. Cambridge University Press and Study of European Scholarship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Both OUP and CUP publish in more than one location, so it's probably best to include which one.

Done.

• Make sure you include states alongside the US cities too (Philadelphia needs PA after it)

Ah ha; done.

• Check you've included as many links to sources as possible – I see The Victoria History of the County of Hertford is found here – check to see if others are also on the Internet Archive or Google Books

See intervention below...

More to come - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just quickly butting in re check to see if others are also on the Internet Archive or Google Books, linking to Google Books is very controversial on en-wiki. As well as the ethical reason that we shouldn't be directing our readers towards a notoriously unethical company whose business model is based on data-mining the browsers of people who land on their website (Google aren't digitizing all those books out of the goodness of their hearts! If you ever want to feel really paranoid, visit their disclosure page and see just how much data Google is holding on you), there's also the practical reason that GBooks links function differently for readers in different countries, with different browser configurations, and different cookies active, so the links can cause serious confusion when readers click on them, are greeted with a "this item does not exist" message, and assume the author has fabricated the source. Including them isn't, never has been and never will be a FA requirement; indeed, I revert on sight when I see anyone adding a GBooks link to a citation which I've added as I don't want other readers to think that I endorse adding links to them. If the work being cited has an ISBN, we already have Special:BookSources, which neutrally gives readers checking the reference the full range of options for checking the item online or borrowing/purchasing a copy, without the issues linking to Google causes. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Iri, Yes, I should have said that the links are not a necessity for FAC, and that is the nominator's choice on whether to add them or not. I also wholeheartedly agree that Google are less than ethical in their use of personal data etc and—like most other companies—are intent on chasing profits to become even more bloated than they are, but while Google Books is still a free-to-access source, I think adding the links is a beneficial step. Adding them is not, of course, mandatory for any article, but I think users find them useful to click onto pieces of greater depth and breadth than we can provide, particularly on specialist areas like this. I've never realised that the adding of such links is considered very controversial, but there again I don't tend to read many of the backwater debates on any page that begins WP: or WT:! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope and reliability

• As far as I can tell from examining the background of the sources/publishers, all sources used are reliable and high quality.
• Searches (through Google Books, Internet Archive and JSTOR) show no additional sources of weight that have not been used.

Spot checks

• Spot checks done on FNs 3, 15 (ab & c), 37, 47, 52 (a & b) and 99. These cover the information that they have been cited for, with no close paraphrasing.

Formatting, scope and reliability, and spot checks now all good: source review passed on that basis. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point That's much appreciated, SchroCat! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: FYI I'm intending to promote this but I'm doing a few checks to see if the sub-page issue is likely to cause any chaos with bots and so forth. --Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Many thanks; just FYI, but I'm absolutely not invested in the title at all—it's served it's purpose for me, but you know there's a requested move on the talk page?! Sorry to have complicated things a bit  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@::Did you find any problems, Laser brain? ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 [10].

---

Mensa (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is hopefully on a par with the 30 Featured Articles on constellations to date. Short and sweet, any issues should be quickly fixed as I believe it is within striking distance of FA-hood. NB: It got a good going-over at GAN by AhmadLX. His one outstanding issue is (hopefully) addressed by this change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Support on 1a. Lead and infobox:

• First para was way overlinked. I've zapped them and lightly edited the para.

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Second sentence: "Its name is Latin for table, though it originally depicted Table Mountain and was known as Mons Mensae." What is "it"? Whatever "it" is, it's depicting and was known as something. Has the constellation's appearance changed so suddenly?

my quandary is how to address this without sounding repetitive - such as if I say "Mensa's name.." or "The constellation's name...". Is it obvious what I am referring to if I say "Its name" or "The name"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If I knew what the intended meaning was, I'd suggest a fix. Table Mountain as in ... South Africa? "it originally depicted", I presume, should be "it was originally likened to". Is that correct? Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

yes, that is the idea. verb substituted accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Infobox: is that a hyphen in the declination range?? Where there's an adjacent minus sign, MOSNUM says to write "to". "Best visible" -> "Visibility best". "the month of January"—kill the first three words.

these involve the template - will try to get a rough consensus for thes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Stars with planets: 2". Just checking: we know for a fact that none of the other star systems has exoplanets, do we? That's what the infobox seems to imply. If not, it's misleading.

the infoboxes cover all the constellations. a bigger issue than here. Should raise it on the wikiproject page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the lead or infobox are we told how far away it is. I guess a constellation is just a pattern in the sky, not a physically cohesive entity. But when you write "part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders", many punters will think the LMC (which is pretty close to the Milky Way) is physically part of the entity. But it's just in the way, visually, right?

correct - it is an artificial construct to map the sky, with close and far objects in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope readers get it. Tony (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

most readers with any knowledge of the area will understand Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Still on the lead:

• "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no apparently bright stars. Its brightest star, Alpha Mensae is barely visible in suburban skies. Two of its star systems have been found to have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud lies within the constellation's borders. Several star clusters and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation." What's the difference between and apparently bright star and a bright star? -->

  "Mensa is one of the faintest constellations in the night sky and contains no bright stars (the brightest, Alpha Mensae, is barely visible in suburban skies). At least two of its star systems have exoplanets, and part of the Large Magellanic Cloud, several star clusters, and a quasar lie in the area covered by the constellation."

  Have I wrongly assumed that the LMC has no star clusters? Tony (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

good points both and tweaked. The LMC does, but they are much fainter than the ones in our own galaxy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:NGC 1987 HST 10595 04 R814 G555 B435.png - NASA image - PD in US
  • Could we get a date on this? Bonus points if anywhere on the file page it says how to use the search tool to find it. I was unable to locate it on the Hubble site. Kees08 (Talk) 04:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am flummoxed on this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying to help out here, seems like the source may be constellation guide originally. Still trying to find it on HST site if I can. Kees08 (Talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

So you type in 'NGC1987' (no quotes, no spaces). This brings up a list you can expand. There is one taken on October 7, 2003, with the Spectral_Elt of 'F814W/F555W/F435W'. If you click on 'Display' it looks like the original Commons image. It also has Prop ID 10595. You should be able to expand the description by saying was detector was used. Also make sure it is not copyrighted by ESA since it was taken before 2008. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Let me know when you get this settled. I think I found all the information, just need it added to the image. Kees08 (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm, @Kees08: which page are you searching and getting this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This page Kees08 (Talk) 04:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, added date - 18th October 2006 ("10595" series/study) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a couple more edits to it, and I think it is good to go now. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Constellation Mensa.jpg CC 3.0 licence by creator
• File:Mensa IAU.svg CC 4.0 licence by IAU. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be under CC 3.0 unported license, per the webpage? Kees08 (Talk) 04:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The web page says " Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" see [11]. Anyway CC-BY-3.0 can be relicenced under CC-BY-4.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah, I was going off the link in the source. I suppose it is relicensed then. In that case, in the FAQ, "Q: Can I just overlay the IAU logo instead of the credit? A: No. The use of the IAU logo is controlled and it must not be reproduced without permission." I think we are okay because the download has the logos on them, but wanted to bring it up in case I was wrong. Kees08 (Talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Ridpath, Ian; Tirion, Wil (2017), Stars and Planets Guide is not used as a reference by the article.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why are some books in the citations section and others (fn 9, 12 and 37) not?

I only put books there if I am referencing different bits to different pages. If only a single page or page range then it sits in the upper section. I have been doing it this way for over ten years (unless someone else has done different) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• author-link John Herschell (and shouldn't he be Sir John in the text?)

done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Spot check: fn 3, 10, 29, 38: ok

• fn 17: an orange giant of spectral type K2III. I can't find that in the reference.

okay, many articles have data on many many stars and are tabulated online. This article is here, from where one clicks on online data to get here. From here one enters the stars HIP designation (in Gamma Mensae's case it is 25918) to get the information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• fn 21: Zeta Mensae is an ageing white giant of spectral type A5 III around 414 ± 9 light-years from Earth. I can't find that in the reference.

same method as preceding but using the star's Henry Draper (HD) number... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• fn 24: Source says 37.7 ± 0.9 parsecs. I make that 123 ± 3 LY. (Consider using the {{convert}} template?)

aah, the 2011 paper uses a 1997 paper for the distance. This was updated in the 2007 paper by van Leeuwen. Sourcing sorted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcery and imagery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Should Tinney (2011) have the volume and issue number?

oops, filled out ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like the two different citation templates in the Citations section are producing different outputs?

ah, changed to align with other sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's my only question on sourcing. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now. I have a couple of questions about images when you get a chance. Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jolielegal

• It may be useful to update the distances to the new Gaia Data Release 2[12], which should be more precise than the Hipparcos measurements.

This is fantastic! I haven't used it as I haven't edited constellation articles much in a while. How do I find the identifier to get the right star? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Just enter the name of the star in the "Simple Target" box at the top of the page. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually SIMBAD is all GAIA'ed now. all van leeuwen refs replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alpha Mensae: clarify that the disk properties (radius and temperature) are just a model based on the assumption that the dust emits as a single-temperature blackbody. Also, the dust detection has been contested[13].

added subsequent study. pondering how to word assumption Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest just to write something like estimated or modeled radius/temperature, to make clear that these values are just approximations. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"estimated" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Beta Mensae/Gamma Mensae: citing the parameters of the stars with such precision ("1.04 times as massive") gives the wrong impression that these values are known to such precision.

The paper for Gamma's mass and age does not give a margin of error. I used the word "around" to signify it's not exact... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pi Mensae: the article needs to mention the recently discovered transiting planet around this star, the first discovery by the TESS spacecraft [14]

I am torn on this one...I really want to add but is it ok if it is just in arxiv pre-print (i.e. not published yet)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a rule or recomendation about arxiv pre-prints. But the source is clearly reliable, and in my opinion it should be included. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it's certainly got some coverage so Pi Mensae c added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• HD 38283: "a gas giant around a third as massive as Jupiter" clarify that this is just a minimum mass

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• What is the criterium for including stars in this list? A quick search in List of stars in Mensa and Template:Stars of Mensa reveals other stars that might be notable to be included here: Tu Mensae[15], TY Mensae[16], UX Mensae[17], YY Mensae[18], AH Mensae[19], HD 39194[20] (has 3 planets, but is not mentioned at all). If AO Mensae is notable for inclusion, then some of these stars certainly are too.

I have used something like this for constellations before. But obviously misses stars with just an HD number. SOme stars are easier to write about than others. The fact that we do have a list gives me pause for including too many. Will scour these ones and include or give reasons for not doing so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that since this is a small constellation and the article is very short there is plenty of room to add more stars in the list. Jolielegal (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Have added all apart from TU Mensae, as I am having trouble finding recent data so don't know whether problems from 1995 still exist...aaand I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a more recent study of TU Mensae: [21]. This object seems to be extra notable for its long orbital period. "This dwarf nova is the longest period SU UMa system." (Although it is no longer the longest, it remains notable [22]. "It had long been known that SU UMa-type dwarf novae are restricted to objects below the famous CV period gap. The only well-established exception was, and has long been, one of the earliest known SU UMa-type dwarf novae, TU Men.") Jolielegal (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok TU Mensae added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• WISE 0535−7500:
  • "either sub-brown dwarfs or free planets", aren't these the same thing? In fact the page free planet is a redirect to sub-brown dwarf.

yes, not sure how that happened. trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• • "of spectral class ≥Y1" maybe clarify to cooler than Y1?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Maybe the article should clarify that the binarity of this object is not confirmed with resolved images, but just estimated from photometry (the object is overluminous for its color). The mass is also just an estimative assuming both components have the same mass.

oops, missed this. done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Large Magellanic Cloud be linked in the beggining of the "Deep-sky objects" section?

yes/linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• PKS 0637-752: the source says "we see it as it was 6 billion years ago", but this does not mean it is located at a distance of 6 billion light-years (see Comoving and proper distances). "The resulting images revealed a gas jet approximately 326,000 light-years long." this was converted from 100 kpc, so the precision is misleading. Jolielegal (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

changed to 330,000 light years...or would you like 300,000? I just removed the light-year bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jolielegal, anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I am still going through the last couple of stars to add. I will alert folks when done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Update? --Laser brain (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Gimme a few hours. Just realised there were a couple of little things.......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay @Laser brain and Jolielegal: unless I have overlooked something I have answered all of Jolielegal's points, but not added one star (TU Mensae) as there are some conflicting results and it's fairly obscure. I am struggling to make that star sound interesting. Over to y'all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. All my points have been addressed. This article is very good. Please keep writing astronomy articles, and I hope to see all constellations featured one day! Jolielegal (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Praemonitus

Support: my concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a few concerns:

• The article uses the following terminology without explanation: "dwarf", "gas giant", "eclipsing binary", "main sequence", "binary system", "orbital period", "sunspot", "light-year", "arcsecond", and "substellar". In some cases a clarification is appropriate; in others a wikilink.

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• The article switches from "AU" to "astronomical unit". I'd use the full term on the first instance with AU in parentheses.

AU unabbreviated at first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "...labelling them Alpha through to Lambda Mensae...": not every reader is going to be familiar with the Greek alphabet, so it should clarify the source.

You mean like this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "...would have been considerably brighter back then": the Jim Kaler article specifies that it was a 2nd magnitude star.

tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The references seem to be in good shape. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alpha Mensae is a solar-type star (class G7V) 33.26 ± 0.05 light-years from Earth.[11] However, data from Herschel Space Observatory failed to confirm this excess, leaving the finding in doubt.— What excess? This seems to refer to something not yet mentioned

oops - pasted that in wrong spot. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• It came to within 11 light-years from Earth around 250,000 years ago and would have been considerably brighter back then.—I don't think it's exactly OR to put "about nine times brighter", per inverse square law

another source says the magnitude, which I have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• It has swollen to around 4.99 times the solar radius—either It has swollen to 4.99 times the solar radius or It has swollen to around 5 times the solar radius

these are tricky as they are all approximate, but I take your point. changing to latter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 [23].

---

Shergar

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Shergar's is a sorry tale. One of the finest racehorses of the 20th century, winner of the Epsom Derby, Irish Derby and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes in the same year he captured the public's eye through a series of wins. Two years after he was retired to stud, he was stolen and a ransom for £2 million was issued. Negotiations broke down, and the horse was never seen again. No individual or group has admitted responsibility, although an IRA supergrass says they were to blame. Whoever it was, it was a sad loss, mostly for the poor horse. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a sad story well told! As usual, I will read the lead but comment that last.

Background

• For people, we'd say first when born, then parents, then looks. Is it different for horses?

• I'm sure have any guidelines that proscribe the order, but I took this outline from Oxbow (horse), an FA. Secretariat (horse), another related FA, does it differently, so I'm not sure there is a common pattern - or a need for one. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• No need, just a question. I was involved in only one horse article - a happier horse - and needed all help from expert Montanabw. I looked it up and saw that the date of foaling isn't even repeated in the body, but now the lead is very short, - it doesn't compare.

• "... some of his yearlings for training in England. He chose Michael Stoute" - that read for a moment as if Stoute was one of the yearlings.

• Yes - tweaked to clarify - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Later development

• The header seems a bit pale for what follows.

• Yes, it probably does. I'll try and think about a replacement that is neutral enough, but conveys something as relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Will look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll think about a replacement header, which is too weak at the moment - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I went with "Possible identification of the criminals", but I'm sure it could be improved upon. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I like that much better, thank you. - I have a lot of things to do today, + RL, so not sure when I can return, but can actually support right now. Whatever questions might come, they are only minor and can be fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As soon as I hit save, I remembered the lead. It's fine, only when we get from the lead of the lead (1st para) to the narration a little longer, I was surprised (but don't know how to prepare for: now we start over). Another question: do we have a picture of the owner in the period? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your coments, and the support. I can't find a free picture of the Aga Khan from the time, only contemporary images, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• Planning to look through references and prose today. ceranthor 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In one season he won the Epsom Derby, Irish Sweeps Derby and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes." - which season was that?

• Added - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1999 a supergrass, formerly in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), stated that Shergar had been stolen by them to raise funds" - why such passive phrasing? "had been stolen by them" is so redundant and wordy

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lead repeats itself a bit, and I think it's a bit too long to be honest. I think the second and third paragraphs could be cut without much lost in terms of the setup for the rest of the article

• There is a minor repetition in telling the 'headline facts' in the opening para, some of which are broadened in the later text. I will look to trim, but I have to disagree about removing too much without giving those who only skim the lead a misleading or incomplete picture. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The story has been made into two screen dramatisations, several books and two documentaries." - the story of his theft? of his success? be more precise

• I'm not sure we need that much precision in the lead, but I've tweaked to "His story"

• " Set over a ​1 1⁄2 mile course" - conversion?

• Oops - now added - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "and turned on the speed to win by four lengths.[38][39]" - "turned on the speed" seems overly colloquial

• yep - now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Fitzgerald said the men were not rough, although one of them who carried a pistol was very aggressive.[53][50]" - refs should go in ascending order (ie. [50][53])

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "On 9 February the thieves opened a second line of negotiation, contacting Ballymany stud directly and speaking to Drion" - is there a typo here with "Ballymany stud"?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The caller told the negotiators "If you're not satisfied, that's it"." - might be better to put a citation directly after this quote to be safe

• Yes, quite right: done - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I worry about the reliability of some of the sources under "Internet and television media", such as Aviva or the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association. Can you speak a little more to the reliability of those two sites, as well as Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage?

• Aviva is the well-known insurance company who were the ones that carried some of the insurance; the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association, Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage are all known and respected in the racing world. Can I spin this round: what do you may be unreliable about them? - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, this looks to be in good shape, particularly on the prose side of things. ceranthor 00:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've covered most of your comments - the lead being the one that needs to be dealt with after a little more thought and re-writing, but I'll sort that shortly. Thanks very much for your comments - they have been most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - No, that's fair, I just had no objective way (not knowing anything about racing) of determining what was reliable or not without asking more about them. Will be happy to support once I think the lead has been satisfactorily fixed up. ceranthor 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat, Gerda Arendt, Casliber, FunkMonk, and Tim riley: Curious to hear other opinions - do you all think the lead is fine as is? Part of me thinks it needs reorganizing and that it's too long. Intend to support, but the lead is holding me back at the moment. ceranthor 13:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It didn't strike me as too long or needing rejigging when I read it for PR and again for FAC. At your prompting I've read it a third time, with as critical an eye as I could muster (if one musters eyes) and I'm still quite happy with it. I know next to nothing about racing and my comments should be read accordingly, but I'm blest if I can see what could advantageously be cut from the lead, and I think it sets out the basic facts logically and clearly. Tim riley talk 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I also found the repetition a bit odd, you basically have the article summarised twice, but well, I'm not sure if that is discouraged in general. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ceranthor, I made some brief trimming to the opening paragraph to remove details to give it more impact and to encapsulate the subject more appropriately. I moved the links down to the second paragraphs to expand on the whole story. I've used this format before: Punchy opening paragraph that covers the subject, then the remaining paras giving more details while it runs through the article in order. If there is anything in particular you think shouldn't be in the lead, I'd be glad to hear it and we can then judge if it's worthwhile keeping or not (purely on the basis of whether it makes the whole story readable to those who only ever read the lede, rather than the full article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Also noting that per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of over 30K characters is expected to have a lead of "three or four" paragraphs"; considering that this article comes in at >32K, it could reasonably bear more weight rather than less to the lead. I don't suggest it; I merely note that the arithmetic does. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what FunkMonk means, but in general terms this is what I understand all leads should do: open with a very short overview and then develop it into a succinct précis of the main article. It's a variation on the ancient advice to teachers and trainers: tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them it; and then tell them what you've told them. We tell them in a sentence or two, then tell them in 300-400 words, then tell them again in as many words as it takes to tell the full story. Tim riley talk 13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your replies. Happy to support this now. ceranthor 14:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and thoughts, Ceranthor. I made a further slight trim today, and I'll re-visit it periodically to sharpen it further if I see a better way of doing it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I've got a fair few of the books already so it makes sense to pick this up. SchroCat, would you be able/willing to email me things I can't otherwise access? For the purpose of spot-checking, I'll be looking at, I think, a random selection of around third of the sources. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• My pleasure - just let me know what you need, and I'll ping it across. You may want to consider Ceranthor's comment about the use of information from Aviva, the Japan Bloodhorse Breeders' Association, the Aga Khan Studs and Thoroughbred Heritage too. I'm fairly comfortable with them as being solid, but if you think any should be replaced, I'm fairly sure I can get the info from elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• @SchroCat: Err: Not part of the source review, but do we need the second "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)"? I think IRA would suffice—after all, there was no other. The Officials had to all intents and purposes formally disbanded by now, and the next in the canon—the Continuity IRA—was not yet even only a glint in Ó Brádaigh's eye. It's a bulky phrase for something pretty self-explanatory; I 'll get on with the source review soon enough. ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've tried it (piping the link into the initials), but it wouldn't surprise me if someone pops it back again! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Shergar_in_1981.jpg: the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is considered of historic significance (eg. Tank Man photo). This should use a different tag and a stronger FUR

• Nikkimaria, Any suggestions on the tag? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Both this and the kidnapping photo could use the default non-free tag from the race image, or this one could use non-free-biog-pic.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, tags changed - I’ll add to the FUR shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• FUR now tweaked also. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The FUR for File:Shergar,_1981_Derby.jpg states it is one of two non-free images in the article, but there are three

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Probable_photograph_of_Shergar_sent_by_his_kidnappers.png probably wouldn't qualify as an artwork, and are we certain it wasn't published before 2018? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Milton Toby specifically says in his book that this photo is "never before published" - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, since he is central to the story, I think the Agha Khan should be introduced in the background section. Briefly, that he is a hereditary religious figure or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Probably one of the photographs sent" Why probably?

• Toby adds a small caveat to the identification - I've added a footnote to cover it now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks FunkMonk - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• You could mention in the caption of the Agha Khan photo that he was the owner of the horse, now the captions gives no context.

• Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any reason why the two maps shown are so different in size?

• Nope! They're not now though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• "After the success of the operation, it was decided to undertake another ransom (kidnapping or theft), this time of Shergar." Seems straight this is stated asa bare fact, when the preceding sentence states IRA are still only suspected, and later sentences state O'Callaghan was unreliable. So who made this claim, based on what?
• "in an effort to raise the money that they failed to do with the Shergar theft" Likewise. What is this claim based on?

• Details added to cover these two - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth mentioning under legacy that documentaries have been made? You mention it in the intro, after all.

• Now added thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "conducted with the thieves in Ireland and Paris" This could be read as if the thieves were in Ireland and Paris, perhaps say "from" instead of "in"?

• This bit has been trimmed out of the lead anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - ugh, forgot this, hope it's ok even after it was promoted, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now - fascinating story..Overall the prose is good, but it would be good if some of the quotes could be de-quoted (some can't but some can). It'd make for smoother reading....

e.g: thought Shergar's run was "the most impressive performance by any two-year-old this season"

After the race Stoute said the horse "might have one more run for experience, and then we'll put him away until next season"

After the race Piggott told reporters that he had no doubt that Shergar would win as the horse "was going so easily all the way".

He also said that Shergar was "one of the best ... [he had] ridden"

I've taken out these and a few others, mostly from the top of the article (they are from race reports, rather than throughout the article). I skimmed though the rest and think most of the rest are OK, but let me know if you think any more could be cut

• The first phone call from those behind the theft was on the night Shergar was stolen - why not just, "The first phone call from the theives was on the night Shergar was stolen"?

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Casliber I've addressed these, but please let me know if there is anything else you think needs looking at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Cas - I'm very grateful. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I peer reviewed the article and my few quibbles were dealt with thoroughly at that stage. On rereading the article I find nothing more to quibble about, and am happy to support promotion. The text is thorough, balanced and well and widely sourced. The pictures, given the recency of the events, are remarkably full and to the point. Meets the FA criteria in my view. A fine article. Tim riley talk 19:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim - I'm very much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I also nitpicked my way through at PR and it's even stronger now than it was then. Very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 [24].

---

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a secular cantata by J. S. Bach, about time, past and present. We looked at several church cantatas before, - this is different. It has in common with some church cantatas that it will soon be 300 years old, on 1 January 2019, to be precise. A main contributor to the article was Thoughtfortheday. It had a recent GA review by Ritchie. - The cantata was writen for a specific day, but then reused for Easter purpuses. The derived cantata gets more attention, performances and recordings, but this one is at times taken for festivities such as the 80th birthday of Bach scholar Alfred Dürr who enlightened us about the timing of Bach's cantatas. A choir in which I sing used the "light" finale for its 25th anniversary. I just hope to make this article as good as possible for the anniversary, with you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A question we discussed during the GA review was the introduction sentence. In the version made GA it follows the MoS. My concern is that readers are fed long German, + long translation, + two BWV numbers (because a change was made in 2018), before Bach is even mentioned, and that all this is a cantata. I'd prefer to say it bit more freely, to help those readers who won't look at an infobox:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed the secular cantata Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht (Time, which day and year doth make), BWV 134.1, BWV 134a, in Köthen. He wrote the Serenata for the court of Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, as a congratulatory cantata for the New Year's Day 1719, the day of its first performance.

Thoughts welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I heard no thoughts, and take the liberty of using that wording, which I prefer, - open to discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the focus should be on the article and not the composer. I would have left the GA wording. Here it is not really a problem, however. --JM

I believe that the focus is clearly on the cantata by the bold title. It is similar in other FAs, see BWV 161, BWV 172 among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We have at least one featured article on music where there's no bolded focus, but still the composer comes first: Piano music of Gabriel Fauré. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Disclosure: I know the nominator.

Tony, thank you for taking a look, and offering your language skills, which is needed by some non-native speaker like me. I am aware that I often construct as I would in German, but less aware where that happens. Thank you also for your interest in Bach's music that we share!

1a:

• "New Year's Day of 1719"—you could drop the "of".

my pleasure, done --GA

• "representing past and future"—do you mean "..., respectively."?

yes, I do, but is it unclear without that clumsy word? Would a comma after past work? --GA

• Who's being congratulated?

Leopold. How would that be said best? --GA

• "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices, an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time." It's not segmented well. "Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, mostly for two solo voices: an alto as Divine Providence and a tenor as Time."

Should that better be split, perhaps?

• "Bach used the cantata as the basis for a church cantata for the Third Day of Easter in Leipzig in 1724, Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134. In its early version, he only omitted two movements and replaced the text by words for the occasion."—"early" is a bit confusing. Not 1719 early, I presume. We don't know yet that there was an early and later version of BWV 134. "initial"? And ... why "only"? Whatever your reasons, it's unclear to readers. Tony (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

taking "initial" for a start. Should we mention (not in the lead but in the body) that Bach may have had extra little time for the three days of Easter because he had premiered the St John Passion? "Only" - this is the minimum adaptation imaginable: don't change a bit of the music, just put a new text underneath. Do you have a way to say that better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

adding to "only": Bach didn't even add a closing chorale, about the least one might have expected, - but I guess it's a bit too far away from the topic of New Year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bachsaal_Schloss_Koethen.jpg: what is the copyright status of the interior?

• File:Leopold_von_Anhalt-Köthen.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Christian_Friedrich_Hunold.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You probably mean me, not Tony. I asked Vami who gave a hint about inside of public buildings (1), calling RexxS also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added PD-1923 to both File:Leopold von Anhalt-Köthen.jpg and File:Christian Friedrich Hunold.jpg, since 2D artwork from the 18th century is PD in the US, and a simple photographic reproduction is ineligible to generate a fresh copyright there.

The interior in Schloß Köthen is more complicated. Panoramafreiheit is defined in article 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, see https://web.archive.org/web/20070930161320/http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/gebaeude.html which effectively leaves the issue as something to be negotiated between the photographer and the owner of the building for indoor shots. The copyright, when granted permission (such as by payment of an entrance fee), would lie with the photographer. However the original uploader, Timitti~commonswiki (last active in 2006), has made a declaration that they release the image under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic" licence, and IMHO unless we have good reason to doubt that they hold the copyright, that licence seems acceptable. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'd really like that image because it shows the style of the surroundings and period better than 1000 words. Help with the alt texts would be greatly appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV

Disclosure: I am the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, and am personally on good terms with the nominator. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Bach sets the words in eight movements consisting of alternating recitatives and arias, [...] Shouldn't this be in past-tense?  Fixed Jmar67 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Is there no date for when Bach wrote this piece? Thumbing through my library turned up no results, except that Bach once wrote a birthday cantata for a neighboring Saxon court in 1722. Bach usually composed shortly before performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) ... but we don't know when exactly. --GA I recommend rewriting paragraphs 1 and 2 of "History and words" into a single paragraph. They deal with the same context. The picture, which is appropriate at this point, interrupts the text. I do not know how to make the text flow around it. Possibly move it to follow heading or the second paragraph. Any other ideas? I have put pic after heading for now. Jmar67 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) I moved the image back because I dislike images directly below the heading. The paragraph about Köthen will probably grow. --GA It looked good on the page after the heading. Have to investigate why it is deprecated. --JM Once upon a time, the MoS said to avoid a left image below a heading, because the eyes of the reader expect text, and hhave to search on the right. I am old-fashioned and still try to adhere to it, although it was dropped some years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) The "Movements" section leads off with an image. --JM It's right image. Sorry I didn't mention it. I try to avoid left images, period. Only, this person has to be left, to look in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) There are two instances of Citation 6 in paragraph 2 of the same section, with no citation between (edit scar?). Consolidate. —Vami Thank you for thorough reading. Will respond (probably much) later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) While he had served as concert master in Weimar before, he became Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble.[5] The prince was enthusiastic about music and was a good bass singer and player of violin, viola da gamba and harpsichord.[5] "While he" refers to Bach, but reads currently like it refers to the Prince, and "while" forms a clause that sounds like Bach was somehow unqualified to be Kapellmeister because of his time as a concert master. Move the sentence "The prince was enthusiastic..." to just after the first sentence, or condense it into that sentence. With that done, you can now perhaps simplify the following sentences for flow (and consolidate the uses of Citation 5). –Vami Can you word better that Kapellmeister was an "upgrade" from the subordinate "concert master"? Shoud the ensemble come in a new sentence? --GA Reworded. --JM I would not separate the ensemble clause into another sentence. Try "Bach had served as concert master in Weimar from [dates], but now was Kapellmeister in Köthen, directing a qualified musical ensemble." –Vami reworded more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) librettist Link. –Vami done --GA a dialogue of two allegorical figures, Time, Interesting. A colon would be most fitting here, just after "figures" ("figures: Time"). –Vami done --GA I find sentence OK as is. Commas would interrupt flow and are not necessary. Jmar67 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) This comment applies to the following edit suggestion. Gerda made the change. --JM The music remained in manuscript form and like nearly all of Bach´s cantatas was not printed in his lifetime. Change "in manuscript form" to "a manuscript" and add a comma before "like" and after "cantatas". –Vami done --GA For another performance of the Easter cantata on 27 March 1731, Bach revised it, Revised what? The words or sheet music? –Vami The cantata. - The first time (1724) he had not revised it, other than putting new text to the music. Do you think how exactly should be mentioned here? The words stayed, but he composed new recitatives, among other changes. Or should that rather go to the Easter cantata article? --GA Add a tiny bit of clarity, like what you said just above me here, and save the whole context for the Easter cantata's article –Vami tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC) (a line from the first tenor aria) Un-parentheses and include in the sentence with a comma or dash. –Vami done --GA The cantata was published in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA), the second complete edition of Bach's works, in 1963, edited by Alfred Dürr, with a critical report the following year. Move "in 1963" after "Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA)" to get rid of a comma. –Vami no because "the second ..." explains NBA, should not be separated. --GA The sentence has too many commas. There is no reason to retain the date where it is. I agree with Vami. --JM year moved to the beginning, then - we cant separate a thing and its explanation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Neue Bach-Ausgabe (New Bach Edition) Unitalicize the English in parentheses. –Vami Why? It's a book title, not only a translation, as "New Bach edition" would be. --GA A- Astute point, my bad. –Vami The tenor as Time looks at the past: "Es streiten, es prangen die vorigen Zeiten im Segen für dieses durchlauchtigste Haus." (The past times struggle, they glory in blessings for this illustrious house.) Well here's a punctuation riddle. I recommend removing the periods in the German text and the parentheses, then ending the sentence with one. –Vami Not convinced, because this incipit is a full sentence, unlike the others. I think that as long as the full stop is within the quotation marks, that should be clear. --GA I wrestled with this during CE. Would prefer to delete the periods. They look strange. --JM The competition of the times is illustrated by figurations in the first violins. What does this refer to? I'd assume (as a dabbling Baroque enthusiast) this means music and the arts. –Vami No, "the times" are still past and future. How can that be clearer? I tried combining two sentences. --GA Reworded for clarity. --JM Ah. JM did exactly what I would sad to do (capitalize "Times"), so all's well. –Vami Bach's instrumentation complements the text well NPOV? –Vami How would you word that he chose strings when strings are mentioned in the text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Movements 5 and 7 have two instances of Citation 1, and only Citation 1. Movement 8 has three instances of Citation 1 with no citation dividing them. –Vami Quotations need a citation right after them. --GA Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben, BWV 147 Link. –Vami done (no idea how I lost it, was there before ...) --GA Schloss Köthen Change to Köthen Castle, link. –Vami No. It's not a castle. In a different Schloss (Weilburg, DYK), we realized that Palace is a better translation but not perfect, because it seems to mean only the building while Schloss is the complex, gardens and all. Better original than loss in translation. - I linked it now, though, as already in the first image caption. --GA [...] for which it was written. I recall the piece being written for a man, not a castle. –Vami Sorry for that hasty wording ;) - short for: the location where the first performance probably took place, which is too clumsy, so I dropped it altogether. --GA Bach's cantata Durchlauchtster Leopold, BWV 173a, his Brandenburg Concerto No. 4, and finally Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht Remove "his"; the pieces before and after Brandenburg Concerto No. 4 in the sentence have been established as being Bach's. –Vami Not sure, because it doesn't come with a BWV number, and readers perhaps don't know. I added a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) That works. –Vami It was titled: Replace the colon with a comma. –Vami Colon removed. Comma would not be correct. No punctuation needed here. Please indicate section name in comments. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) There's no colon after "titled", and I can't change the colon in the title because it's part of the quote. Again, thank you for specific and helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) I replied a few time, with thanks to both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jenhawk777

Full disclosure: I consider myself a friend and admirer of Gerda, however, if admiring Gerda and her work is a disqualifier, it will probably disqualify everyone she's ever come in contact with, so, I will do my best to be as fair--and as critical--as possible. This is a good article and I am inclined to support it, but I will go through the prose and do a reference check of anything in English.

Thank you for taking the time to look. This article, as pointed out in the beginning, was written by several people, I am only the nominator ;) --GA

• The music remained a manuscript and, like nearly all of Bach's cantatas, was not printed in his lifetime. Does that mean handwritten manuscript?

  Teach me English, isn't manuscript defined as handwritten? --GA

That is one of its common uses. It can also refer to any unpublished work, handwritten or not. Author's today still refer to their computer printed documents as manuscripts. It's a minor point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am through Movements where I am trying to decide if it wouldn't be appropriate to include just a little more detail.

  I'd love to add, but unfortunately this piece wasn't discussed much in detail, as a one-day-piece, and not even the derived Easter cantata was discussed much, as a derived work. Anybody: give me more sources, and I'll happily add. --GA

• For example It reflects that Anhalt was given many hours of blessing in the past. Who is Anhalt? What blessings? I'd kind of like to have a few examples.

  Please see History of Saxony-Anhalt. Leopold was a prince of Anhalt-Köthen. I am a copy editor and using initials JM. Jmar67 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Added link to Anhalt-Köthen. –Vami

  Changed link, text refers to Anhalt. --JM

  Thank you, all! --GA

Yes! Thank you, that's perfect. As someone who knows nothing of Bach's music, I thought this might be a question other ignoramouses (ignoramice??) would ask. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• 5, gives some details about Leopold's qualities like what?

  Will look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't do more tonight--it's already after midnight here. I'll be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Finished with prose review. It's an excellent article. Now spot checking references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The refs I looked at were good. This article has my support for featured article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt

• "when the cantata title was chosen as the motto of an international conference about chronology in Bach's music" I might say "when the cantata's title was chosen as that of an international conference on chronology in Bach's music ..."

  done, thank you for language finesse! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "he had to write cantatas only for secular feast days: the Prince's birthday and New Year's Day. He wrote Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht as a congratulatory cantata for New Year's Day of 1719.[6] (paragraph) Of the twelve cantatas which Bach may have composed for the two occasions " As it is, the focus on "secular feast days" causes in the next paragraph less likelihood that the reader will remember "what two occasions". I would address by starting: "he had to write cantatas only for the Prince's birthday and New Year's Day, the court's secular feast days. He wrote ..."

  done a bit differently, please check. ---GA

• You say "prince's birthday" and "Prince's birthday". I would check all instances of "prince" so as to assure consistency.

  done --GA

  Should be lowercase per MOS if not accompanied by name. Reverted. --JM

  thank you ---GA

• "The music remained a manuscript" I might say "The music remained in manuscript"

  done --GA

• "However, the music of the original Köthen work was separated from its text because Bach used the sheets for his Leipzig performance." This reads a bit unclearly. I imagine "the sheets" are the score, but this might be better rephrased with an eye to the less musically educated.

  A sentence I found, - will think about saying that better, but not after midnight ;) --GA

  I tried now, moving the sentence to after one about the new text. Perhaps you can help to clarify. Bach simply wrote the new text in the old performance material, his score and the singers' parts. So the former text was no longer there (I don't know exactly how, sorry.) It took some detetive musicologist to make the connection that this was the Köthen cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Reworded slightly. What is the source? --JM

  I consulted Dürr in the BWV 134 section, and rewrote it. Better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Again, rephrased for flow. Seems OK. Later softened "no changes" to "no significant changes" since other ref says "minor changes". Agree? --JM

• "For another performance of the Easter cantata on 27 March 1731, Bach revised it further, including the composition of new recitatives for the 1724 text." This also seems a bit unclear. I might say following the first comma, "Bach used the 1724 text with new recitatives" Assuming that the recitatives were the significant change, the "revised it further" is implied.

  Well, it's only 3 recitatives. Will think. --GA

  Again, perhaps you can clarify. - In a way, he had not "revised" it the first time, just writing new text to existing music. How could that be said better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "with a critical report the following year.[2]" What is a critical report?

  Editors of critical editions write about what sources they consulted and which choices they made, often just within the publication, but for this monumental one in extra books, the critical reports. - more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It reflects that Anhalt was given many hours of blessing in the past.[1]" I might toss in a ", the prince's domain," after "Anhalt" (or "Prince's" if you decide on capitalization)

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "(Help, o Highest," I would capitalize o

  only, the reference from which it is quoted doesn't ---GA

• In the text, Koopman's recording is listed as 1988, in the table as 1998.

  very observant, fixed ---GA

• You are not consistent on the italicization of Hunting Cantata.

  but now ---GA

• Why is "Köthener Herbst" italicized?

  probably in this impulse to italicise everything German, but this is a festival name, removed italics ---GA

• " with published results" I'm not clear what these are. Maybe "proceedings" for "results"?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, very good catches and food for thought, - two still open, - I am rather busy today, and promised a birthday present article ;) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I responded now to the so far open issues, making more changes but not sure about all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems all good to me. The remaining minor issues I will leave to your discretion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SN54129

I haven't read any of the previous reviews, so apologies in advance for any repetition. Also note that I am deliberately—due to an absolute dearth of musical bones in my body—reviewing this as the most lay of all laymen, so further apologies in advance if I ask questions that have blindingly obvious answers. Incidentally, that's why I deliberately avoided looking at any of the technical stuff—I wouldn't know whether it was right or wrong!—so prose only.

• I wondered: do we have a little more detail on the date of composition? Opening the history section, you give a range of dates for his attendance at the court, and then state that it was performed on NYD 1718. I assume this means he composed it the previous year—but, I don't know, perhaps they take longer?—anyway, I think a specific date would be useful here if you've got one.

  (same question further up) he usually composed shortly before a performance, but we don't kow, and what would it change? --GA

• "Of the twelve cantatas which Bach may have composed": perhaps "Of the twelve cantatas which Bach is thought to have composed"?

  "is thought" by whom? --GA

• "30 kilometres (19 mi)": consistency between abbreviations.

  you are right, and these things keep being hard for me ;) --GA

  Fixed. Spell out. --JM

  Restored. There is no requirement for "consistency between abbreviations". The MoS guides us to spell out unit names on first occurrence and thereafter use abbreviations. That is rational, because a non-English speaker might not recognise an abbreviation unless they have seen the full unit name. MoS also suggest supplying conversions for units that differ between imperial and metric, which is also sensible, but there's no point in giving the full unit for the conversion because anybody who understands e.g. distances in miles, but not kilometres, will understand the abbreviation for miles. There is therefore zero reader case for a full unit name as the converted quantity and we don't do it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a reason (this is more curiosity on my part) that "Auserlesene und theils noch nie gedruckte Gedichte unterschiedener Berühmten und geschickten Männer (Selected and partly never printed poems of different notable and skillful men)" is immediately translated whereas the piece that follows— Der Himmel dacht auf Anhalts Ruhm und Glück, BWV 66a—is not. Perhaps because the latter is wikilinked I guess? (Incidentally, isn't "skillful" > "skilful"? Or perhaps it's an AmEng/BrEng thing.)

  This one is translated because it has no article, while the other has, so you can be sure - if really interested - to find the translation there. These Baroque titles often mean nothing, - well, this one does, and perhaps I'll change my mind. --GA

  I added two translations after all, because it helps clarifying "Anhalt" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "dialogue of two allegorical figures" > "dialogue between two allegorical figures"?

  if you say so, - these subtleties remain a secret, so thank you! --GA

• "remained in manuscript...not printed in his lifetime": I think the sentence could be tightened—perhaps something like "stayed a manuscript, like most of Bach's cantatas, remaining unpublished during his lifetime". Although almost seems tautological: if it stayed an MS, then it wasn't published. You might consider dropping the reference to the MS?

  (see further up) This sentence (now changed) was in the article before me, and I have this tendency what others brought in before me. Feel free to tighten it. --GA

• "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on..." lots of cantatas! Suggest "Bach led its first performance on...", as you've just mentioned the cantata a few words earlier.

  done, thank you, - in another article, a reviewer counted mentionings of the word and arrived at a three-digit number ;) --GA

• "Bach used the secular cantata later in Leipzig as a basis for the Easter cantata": can this be rephrased? The double cantata jars a little, how about "Bach's later Easter cantata in Leipzig reused/was based on the earlier...", or something? If I've just got confused, apologies; but it's quite a technical sentence.

  will see, - it's a key fact of his (parody) method to reuse material --GA

• "The new text, by an unknown poet..." Here's a thing! To the layman—i.e., me—this could sound like it was re-written; can we have a little more o why this happened and (if we don't know who wrote it) why we don't know the author? It sounds like a Big Deal—and if it isn't, then something to tell us why it wasn't (maybe it was a common occurrence, for example?)

  We don't know the authors for most of his church cantatas, - do we agree that we talk about the Easter cantata? How else can we say that it is so for this one also? --GA

• "The instrumental parts were usable unchanged": this is complex—something like, "The instrumental parts could still be used as they were"?

  I don't get the meaning of "still" here. Would you suggestion be alright without that word? --GA

  "still" = "continue to". I modified this from "could" to avoid interpretation as "might be possible". Later I saw that the source used "could". Current wording also serves as looser paraphrasing. --JM

• "and likely wrote a new score on this occasion"> "...for this occasion", assuming that he didn't sit there and write it in front of the audience :)

  good catch!

  Changed. --JM

• "...who wrote a...": suggest "...author of a..."; also, how about "discovered" rather than "found"? The former makes it clear that she was (presumably) searching for things like this, while the latter suggests serendipity.

  will do --GA

  done now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• " found the printed text"; now, this is interesting. I think some clarification would be good here—unless I've missed something (perfectly possible!), the last we heard was that the original cantata was never published during Bach's life, and it was a manuscript at that point. Now we hear that there is a printed text. This suggests that some more detail on the printing history is needed—basically, what happened to the MS after JSB died? This sentence also implies that the printed text itself had gone missing (otherwise, presumably, Spitta wouldn't have needed to find it). If Bach does in 1750, and Spitta discovers it c.1870, what had happened in the meantime?

  Printed text: Hunold published his works. --GA

• If "Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe" is a publication (rather than the name of a society), wouldn't it be italicised? (MOS question which I'm sure you know the answer to better than me!)

  Well, it's an edition in many volumes, printed over many years, - would that be italic?

• "However, the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe did not make..."; tighten, "However, the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe did not print..."

  I tried differently, avoiding the "not", please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "with a critical report the following year": What is this exactly?

  same question by Wehwalt --GA

I need to drop everything at this point, so please be patient, and not surprised that where I said done, is not done, and will likely have to wait for tomorrow. Many thanks for good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "While the derived Easter cantata was included in the complete recordings of Bach's church cantatas by Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Gustav Leonhardt, Helmuth Rilling, Ton Koopman, Pieter Jan Leusink, John Eliot Gardiner and Masaaki Suzuki, the festive secular cantata dedicated to the specific occasion was recorded only a few times" > wow  :) can this be broken up at all? I'm not sure how but that's a long list of names in the middle of what's already quite a complex sentence. I'll have a think about it myself in the meantime.

  We could just say "in the complete recordings" and link somewhere, but if we mention names we should mention all, for fairness. - Some of the redordings have their own articles, such as Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, and there's a summary on Bach cantata#Complete Recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "on the occasion of the 80th birthday of Bach scholar Alfred Dürr": you've already mentioned Durr above, so suggest the career detail is moved up there. That would shorten this sentence, which could be reformed as (something like) "to celebrate Durr's 80th birthday" perhaps.

  Most readers of this rather speacial article will know Dürr. It's just nice that Time (the timing of Bach's works) was one of his main topics, and so important in the cantata. I'd prefer to have that together. --GA

• " with published results": they later published the proceedings of the conference?

  "proceedings"? --GA

• "The cantata was performed in a public celebration of Dürr's birthday": we know whose celebrations they were from the previous sentence; suggest, "As part of the birthday celebrations, the cantata was performed..."

  done --GA

• You might want to link musicological.

  done --GA

• In fact You should probably recast the "Legacy" section—just that, as it is, you mention the proceedings being published, then mention the celebratory performance, and then go back to the publication. Combining my couple of suggestions above, this could read something like:

  In 1998, an international musicological conference was held in Göttingen, Germany, to celebrate Durr's 80th birthday. It was titled "'Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht': zur Chronologie des Schaffens von Johann Sebastian Bach", and featured a public performance of the cantata.[29][30] The conference proceedings were subsequently published, and a reviewer later noted that the topics covered by international musicologists such as Hans-Joachim Schulze (de), Andreas Glöckner and Jean-Claude Zehnder (de) generally focused specifically on the person's field of expertise in relation to Dürr's achievements.[3]

  I adopted it somewhat, please check. --GA

• Actually—that last sentence ("the reviewer noted that..." is a bit of a mouthful, and, if you don't mind me saying, I'm not sure of the relevance: it seems to be discussing what various musicologists said about another musicologist at his birthday, rather than discussing the cantata itself.
  ——SerialNumber54129 11:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  it's just he is The Bach scholar, so please forgive me a sentence of honouring ;) - shortened as part of the above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I assume a source review is still needed. As a potential new formal process within FAC or elsewhere, I thought I'd get some (more) practice.

Thank you very much! --GA

Bibliographic information

• I was confused by the section that begins the sources, "Bach Digital". As an online resource, can these three links just be included with "Online resources"?

  Bach Digital is The source for sources for Bach's works, access to where the origonal documents are, and much more. It was separated in other similar articles (BWV 4, BWV 125). --GA

• Can you use {cite book} appropriately to make Richard Jones a translator, in the first book entry?

  I could but feel that he did more than translate, revising 30 years after the book was written, and as a scientist, not a translator only. --GA

  OK, I figured (book says "revised by Jones" or such).

• Can you mark all German sources as such? A few are marked "in German", but no others are. Alternately, can you remove any remaining marks, as it should be fairly clear to any person interested in this topic that German is involved. Looking for consistency here. :-)

  good idea, done, I hope --GA

• "1.4" is actually "I.4"—aren't you happy I'm helping?!

  I am happy ;) --GA

• Wolff 2001 is 2000 according to the copyright page of the book. (Both GBooks and Amazon say "2001" but 2000 is right there on the page, and in the provided library call number.)

  fixed --GA

• I think the conference report could be cited more fully. If you click on "cite this", APA, they provide "Internationales wissenschaftliches Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Dürr (1998 : Göttingen, Germany) & Dürr, Alfred, 1918- & Staehelin, Martin (2001). "Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht" : zur Chronologie des Schaffens von Johann Sebastian Bach : Bericht über das Internationale wissenschaftliche Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburstages von Alfred Dürr, Göttingen, 13.-15. März 1998. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen". You don't have the "author" beginning there; perhaps there is a better cite template for such reports?

  I tried with this template, would not know a specific one. --GA

• no retrieval date for some online sources

  added --GA

• A date such as 2012 for Ridout - where is that from? And 2018 for ArkivMusic? I removed 2018 from AllMusic, which was "retrieved in 2016".

  The Ridout date is from the url, the website is organized by review months. The other, sorry, probably from copying and failing to change --GA

• "Translation: David Kosviner" on the PDF.

  added --GA

• Can I suggest "dissertation" be added to the d-nb.info link. It's also not marked as a PDF. This is fundamentally more of a "cite book" scenario with the dissertation mentioned, and a URL given.

  agree (but it's no PDF) --GA

  The link "https://d-nb.info/1106404866/34" loads a 245-p. PDF for me!

  Learning. It doesn't have .pdf as file type ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of changing domain names to web site names, where possible.

  Thank you! --GA

• I don't understand at all what is being cited in "9. Köthener Herbst". Is this a document storage site that happens to have this file/PDF?

  The concert at the palace where it was first performed is cited, p. 22, in the context of the festival. --GA

  I think I understand the citation now. So you say p. 22.--now I see where "9. Köthener Herbst" comes from--except that's "8. Köthener Herbst"

• is the publisher of second to last "Leipziger Universitätsmusik"?

  yes, better (the choir is part of it) --GA

• External links ignored.

  Among the external links is Julian Mincham, on whom much of the article relied before I expanded, but who - according authority Brianboulton is not a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a diligent look at the sources, - relief, because I wondered whom I would molest with this. More replies (to the concerns below) to come soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source quality

• Bischoff is in the dept of computer science, and provides primary text ("Here you can find the texts of all of J. S. Bach's vocal works"). Is there not a better source for this? Surely books or more authoritative online works include the text? It was in the article before you started, I expect from retrieval date.

  It was there, and is in the cantatas articles up to GA level. I moved it to the scoring table, and only supporting. If you feel strongly about it, I'll move it to the external section, like some others, but Bischof overview is the clearest overview at a glance. Dürr-Jones takes 3 pages, and is not accessible online for all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I think the table is relying on Bischoff for the columns "type, vocal, winds, strings", right? But Durr supports the whole table, hopefully? I accept your argument that an online source is convenient for people without book access.

  Both Dürr and Bischof support the table, but I confess that it's in a way original research that an oboe is a wind instrument ;) - The split of brass, winds and string makes sense - and is the same in other such articles - because it's typical for Bach to give an aria a certain colour/character, such as strings only for #4, and is nice to see that at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Source checks

• Note 9, p. 798: Where can we establish that the prince's birthday is 10 Dec.? His article differs (is this a calendar issue)? Nevertheless, not clear from the text, but I may be missing context given all the German involved. well, I found p. 816, not cited, which mentions the birthday, by searching.

  I now begin a page sooner, which says "the birthday of the reigning prince" (in general, not a specific prince), + added (before I even got to here) the Bach Digital page for this cantata which also has 10 December. All in English ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  I see your point, about the conflict with our article on him. "Old style" could be, only for Bach the difference is 10 days, for him 11?? Leap year somewhere? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Avoid this issue and just say "birthday in 1718"? --JM

  What do others think. If I was a reader, and saw in the quoted reliable sources "10 December" but the article only gives a year, I'd not know what to think :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  Fine as is; the book says 10 Dec (while writing the original comment I think I saw 11 Dec in another source); whatever you decide is fine.

  The problem I see (but not really for this article) is that our article on Leopold says 29 November, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note 10, a (p. 809): When I search for "providence" in the book, I get something that looks like support on p. 285. I don't get it. You have literally linked to p. 809.

  I gave it two other sources. For Dürr, it's a bit later, but sadly on a page I can't see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Outriggr (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  For context, I wasn't aware/forgot that this FAC might not "need" a source review because Gerda is not a new nominator. (FWIW, image reviews, source reviews, and any exemptions therefrom are not mentioned in FAC materials at all, that I can see.) Outriggr (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  I am aware that this FAC needed your eyes ;) - and thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just to wrap up this section for coordinators, it'a source review pass. I didn't do as many verification tests as I hoped, but all the items mentioned here are resolved. Outriggr (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tourbillon

I'm familiar with much of Bach's instrumental work but not so much with his vocal pieces. It was interesting reading about this somewhat obscure cantata and I find no major issues with the article itself. There are several red links at the end - is there enough material to create those articles? If not, the links should rather be omitted. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tourbillon! There is only one red link, all others are {{ill}} links to the German Wikipedia which establish some notability and provide those who can read German with direct access (and others could translate what they find there). Having said that, all these links are planned to turn blue before the end of the year, - I just added them to my to-do-list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, would still think they're better off just linking to the German version without having a local red link, but it's no big deal. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Direct linking to any foreign is a no-no ;) - Imagine you are blind, and your screenreader tells you something written in German with English pronunciation. - Anybody reading: if you see a direct link to a foreign language, please convert it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Nice work, I suspect I will be supporting. Some quibbles:

• The singers are supported by - vocalists

  That would be the first time I'd use vocalist in classical music. --GA

  I don't understand this cryptic reply so have edited. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• The character of the music - the music, drop "the character of the"

  and then what? "the style"? - we can't compare music and opera. --GA

  Wot? But your not distinguishing music and opera here? Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• he made no changes - did not change

  reluctant, coming from German ;) --GA

  He, as somebody that spent his 20s living with a German lass (who still lives in Cork and chats so I cant be all that bad) Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• and replace the text by words for the occasion - with words

  taken --GA

• In an adaptation for performances in the 1730 - in a 1730s adaption

  sorry, not convinced, trying to avoid a year as an adjective, + it's two performances we know of which doesn't show --GA

  In 1730s adaptions. Trying to reduce verbosity. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Not sure yet. We miss "performance", - and it's rather rare that we know when a cantata was performed again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  ???In the 1730? We are not loosing any meaning or specificity here. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the first version of this Easter cantata, Bach made no significant changes to the music other than omitting the fifth and sixth movements - these seem like pretty significant 'changes' to me. Why not "Bach omitted the fifth and sixth movements"

  how then would you say - which needs to be said, that in this and one more case he simply had the music copied and wrote new text underneath? - omitting movements for reasons of time requirements is not really any change to what he had composed. --GA

  Thats not coming across. For a lay reader it seems like you are hand waving the removal of two structural passages. Ceoil (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• were thus aware - dont like 'thus'

  Any suggestion? (It was there before I expanded.) --GA

  Simply remove the word "thus". It was intended as a pointer for future editing. Have taken out. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• his structure is similar to other cantatas Bach composed in Köthen, but it is different from most of his church cantatas: "similar to his Köthen cantatas, but differ...

  that could be works by other composers, no? --GA

  No. Note "his" Köthen cantatas. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• the cantata culminates in a choral movement opened by the tenor's "Ergetzet auf Erden" - tense: "opening with"

  good catch --GA

• The middle section of the movement is again - The middle section is again Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  done --GA

• Of the twelve cantatas Bach may have composed for the two occasions during his six years in Köthen, Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht is one of two which survived, the other one being - Jesus. I'm okish with numbers, but this...needs to be broken down with more clarity. I think the difficulty comes in not properly defining the categories you are trying to distinguish. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Will think about that one, RL.

Thats about it. These I suspect *are easily fixed. Ceoil (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you good points, some fixed, some questioned, no time right now for the last one, possibly also don't get the question yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Re the last pont, you are leaving too much for the reader to figure out - 12, 2, may, 6, 2, and maybe an other. I head scratched. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  I tried to avoid that six years in Köthen times two occasions is twelve, - any suggestion? - How about: "Only two cantatas survived of the twelve that Bach is thought to have composed in his six years in Köthen"? - It should be clear that this is one of the two, as it obviously survived. - Open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Much better Gerda; but i'd even go "while in Köthen". Ceoil (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  reworded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving to Support, though some issues are unresolved, they are not material to promotion. Gerda, if you are ok with it, might give another ce pass tonight or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Brief comment from Brianboulton

I can't offer a detailed review, but the opening paragraph of the lead seems to be rather clumsily written and could, I think, be refashioned to provide a more welcoming intro to the article. For example:

• The English translation of the title should be given in quotes

In other similar articles (compare BWV 125), we use italics for translated titles that are used as titles in English, but not for a simple translation in English. --GA

• What is the purpose of including the "B 134 1" label as well B 134a?

Sigh. Anout the BWV, I mean. In 2018, the BWV was renumbered. What used to be BWV 134a is now BWV 134.1. While the new numbers are somewhat more logical, I am sure the old ones - which are used in all the sources - will remain to be used, so - sigh - we have to show both. --GA

Why not say "formerly BWV 134.1, now BVW 134a" - which would clarify things? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I must have been unclear, if like that it would be just the opposite, I mean the traditional number was 134a. "Formally" is wrong, because even source which introduces 134.1 has both on the same level. If you ask me nobody will care about the new number, but it's (also) official as of 2018. When it was introduced to the article by Francis Schonken, he said "formerly" for 134a, but I disagree strongly. It's in all sources from the first NBA edition in 1963, and will keep being used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As you put "BVW 134a" in the article title, it is reasonable for the uninitiated such as myself to assume that this is the generally accepted index number. So what, exactly, is the status of BVW 134.1? This might seem like straining after a gnat, and I'm sorry that I originally misunderstood, but the issue remain confusing unless it is properly explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

BWV 134a was put in the article title when it was created, in 2010. The new additional number came recently, by the third version of the BWV numbers, called BWV3 by Francis, which came as a complete surprise to me. I don't think we should change historic article names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to specify that the work was written in Köthen, when you say it was written for the Köthen court?

I'll think about it. It's standard to give the location soon, - most cantatas Leipzig, some Weimar, some Köthen.

• Why is the work described both as a "secular cantata" and as a "serenata"?

Secular cantata is the genre. Serenata, for the evening, more specific, and afaik in historic sources. --GA

• I'm not clear what "congratulatory" implies. Who was being congratulated, and why? "Celebratory" might be a better word?

That was a sentence found, and try to keep what thers did before me. When reading further you'll see that Leopold is congratulated a lot, but I'll change it. --GA

Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• (The English translation of the title should be given in quotes--a-ha! I was reverted here, but then I wanted all similar constructions in quotes, which does feel "busy". Special:Diff/866110169 (said light-heartedly) Outriggr (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for looking, Brian, hope I could help. On vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You've made the odd change, though to me the opening still looks rather messy. But I'll leave the judgement to others. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We sadly can't help the BWV numbers, unless we take the new one that nobody knows to a footnote. We could postpone the translation to later in the opening, talking about that of course there's more than one, the one shown being a singable one (matching the music) rather than close to the meaning. What do you think. I was out all day, just returning, and will do something about the repition of Köthen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this slightly garbled post. All I'll add concerning the translation is that if it a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, all the more reason to put it in quotes. But as I say, I'll leave this and the other matters for others to determine. Good luck with the nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem to put a translation in quotation marks if it helps, - it would just just be different from any other article on a Bach cantata, several of them FAs and GAs, and I am not sure what exactly it would add. - I am sorry about typos in my post made in a rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2018 [25].

---

Demetrius III Eucaerus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little known late Seleucid king of Syria, whose successes were surprising considering how weak the dynasty was in its last days. His appearance in Judea and defeat of it king, which practically opened the road to Jerusalem for him, left enough impact that he appeared in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Demetrius III is an interesting king and one of the last Seleucids of any military reputation.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting subject, Attar-Aram syria, many thanks! I made a couple of tweaks of minor things that jumped out at me. Tell me, has this gone through any other review processes? I see it's start-class at the moment, and it's a helluva jump to FA! Although you've also put a helluva lot of work into it! Nice one  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words. Actually it did not go through GA... etc. It can take 8 months sometimes in GA and I am sure that this article is over qualified for GA. It is not a requirment for an article to go through other processes I believe, and I already brought Cleopatra Selene of Syria, Antiochus X Eusebes, Philip I Philadelphus and Antiochus XII Dionysus from start class to FA. So, do I get your support for this ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead and Background, 1a:

• "who reigned as King of Syria"—why not simpler? "who was King of Syria"
• Be aware that most readers will be flummoxed by the quick succession of names in the first para and the start of the second para. For example, "his brother Seleucus VI" is the father's brother or Demetrius III's brother? There are two more brothers mentioned later (the twins). My head is spinning. Perhaps it's hard to avoid, but most of the lead seems to focus not on the subject but his relatives.
• "With the long civil war, Syria fell to pieces"—are you talking about right now? No, but history is repeated. Now, why "the"? Do we know about it already? Are you likening it to the feuds and foreign interference in the previous sentence? If so, it's unclear. Repetition: "fell to pieces" and "tearing ... apart".

I changed some of the wording to make it easier. Demetrius III never reigned alone; he always had a competitor. Therefore, his biography is the story of his struggle with his relatives. If I will delete the information about those other characters, then the lede will not summarize the article.

• "when Antiochus VIII provided a degree of stability which lasted for a decade.[5]" I hope the source has some authority in claiming this. How did he suddenly provide stability, the reader might wonder.

Sure, the source is based on historic facts. The last pretender, Alexander II Zabinas, was defeated by Antiochus VIII in 123 BC. This made Antiochus VIII the sole ruler of the country for the next ten years until his brother Antiochus IX decided to usurp the throne. I tried not to go into much detail than necessary for the life of Demetrius III. Do you want me to explain how Antiochus VIII provided the stability?

• You cite (second-hand) Josephus. Who was this person? Is it from private correspondence? Public documents? The surge of names is upon us again at the end of Background. Any chance of a diagrammatic family tree, which you could refer to so we can keep it under control visually, as readers?

I clarified who Josephus is

A hard read. Tony (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand this; in less than ten years, Syria had five kings named Antiochus, one Seleucus, one Demetrius, and one Philip. All of them fought for the throne. The late Seleucid era is a very complicated period even for specialists, and Im afraid that we can not make it simpler.

I'm sure it can be made easier for readers. Tony (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@@Attar-Aram syria: Well, you might have just done it. How about a summary sentence before you get into the detail saying more or less ^^^that, and then when the barrage of names is upon us, etc., you can just use their first names to distinguish them. That would immediately eliminate any confusion from the repeated names. ——SerialNumber54129 07:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How so Tony? I have done my best. If you think you can make it easier, then go ahead, if not and you are not satesfied with my work, then feel free to oppose the nomination. Im not gonna lower the quality of the article and make it less informative to make it simpler.
Serial Number 54129: Sounds reasonable. I will see what I can do

Support Comments from Tim riley

This is an impressive piece of work, but I have a few comments on the prose. It's rather a pity the article wasn't peer reviewed before being brought to FAC: some of the infelicities could have been weeded out. It will take me more than one go to deal with them; here is the first batch of comments, down to the end of the "Manner of succession" section:

Thanks for reviewing this Tim. Point taken, next time I will probably get a peer review. I always take an article to the copy-edit guild before nominating. I guess this was not enough in this case

• Background, family and early life
  • "foreign Egyptian interference" – perhaps tautological: isn't anything Egyptian ipso facto foreign in this context?

fixed

• • "destabilize" – the article appears to be in BrE, in which everyone but the Oxford University Press seems to favour "–ise" endings, which, I see, are favoured elsewhere in this article. We have "sympathizers" and "synchronization", true, but "emphasise" (twice), "synchronised" and "synchronisation". Consistency would be desirable.

I converted the article to full BrE

• • "Antiochus IX killed Tryphaena, while Antiochus VIII was assassinated" – this use of "while" for "and" or "although" or "whereas" or "but" is always perilous, and can take you into the "Miss X sang Bach while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory, not quite avoided here, I think, or in the two later uses of the word in the "Name and royal titulary" section. As Fowler says, "The temporal sense that lurks in 'while' may lead those who use it into the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred or will occur simultaneously which cannot possibly do so." When I find myself falling into the trap I often find a semicolon works better than any alternative conjunction.

fixed

• Name and royal titulary
  • Is the absence of italics for "The Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews" deliberate?

fixed. I thought that I dont have to used italics for english titles

• • "neither Eucaerus or Akairos were used" – oughtn't this to be "was used"?

fixed

• Manner of succession
  • "several arguments justify the existence of a collaboration" – the arguments may corroborate the existence, or justify the theory of a collaboration, but they don't justify its existence, surely?

fixed

• • "viewed the ascendance of Demetrius III through the context" – does one view things through a context rather than in it?
  • "Josephus' account" and "Josephus' synchronisation" – but elsewhere, with one exception, the possessive form of Josephus is in the usual BrE ess-apostrophe-ess.

fixed. Though Im confused here. According to this guide, names ending with an S should have a possessive S unless the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra S. So, where do "Josepgus" fit?

The guide you quote is not entirely reliable – in the second example, Saint-Saëns, it misspells the name and is wrong about the pronunciation: one does in fact pronounce the s: "Sonsiz" – but is correct in its broad precepts. People speaking the phrase "Josephus's hat" would give it five syllables, i.e. saying "Josephussiz", so ess-apostrophe-ess" is right. I see from Google that there is a book with the title Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible Tim riley talk 09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

fair enough

• • "of numismatist Arthur Houghton" – you have avoided clunky false titles elsewhere and it would be easy to avoid one here.

I've never used those titles until I was asked to in several FACs. Some editors were just confused when they read the name of a modern scholar and asked who he/she is. Many reviewers made it clear that I need to introduce those scholars.

It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title. Tim riley talk 09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, now I get it. I thought you wanted the word numismatist removed. I added "the" to avoid titles

More shortly. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Concluding batch

• The struggle against Antiochus X
  • "Demetrius III and Philip I waged a fierce war against Antiochus X … the latter was…" – "latter" should not be used when there are more than two people or things in question (cf "former").

fixed

• Judaean campaign
  • "convinced Demetrius III to invade Judaea" – if, as it appears, we are in BrE it would be as well to avoid the AmE construction "convince to". Ditto for "convince to defect" later. And I know the AmE use of "due to" as though it were a compound preposition is gradually infecting BrE, but I still think "it would be conquered easily due to the civil war" would be better as "owing to" or "because of".

fixed

• • Another incidence – two in fact – of Antiquities of the Jews unitalicised.

fixed

• • "6000 Judaean rebels" – elsewhere you use a comma in thousands – "3,000 cavalry" etc.

fixed

• • "would have likely conquered Judaea" – unexpected word order. I think the natural BrE form would be "would probably have conquered".

fixed

• Notes
  • Note 6 – is there a word missing towards the end of the second sentence?

wording changed

• • Note 7 – I'm struggling with "terminus post quem". If I correctly read the text, the defeat was by 93 BC at the latest, which would make that year the terminus ante quem. Or am I misremembering the terms? Whichever terminus you alight at, I think I'd put it in italics. A quick dip in Google books suggests that this is standard in archaeological publications.

fixed

That concludes my comments on the prose. Tim riley talk 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

One more read-through and then I shall be back here to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Now happy to support promotion to FA. Clearly meets the criteria, in my view. It’s a fascinating read, though one has to concentrate: the kaleidoscope of names is slightly dizzying, but plainly unavoidable given the large cast of leading players. The article is balanced and evidently comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and well cited (review below), and the illustrations are judiciously chosen. A fine addition to Wikipedia. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks tim. Im glad you enjoyed the reading

Source review

The sources appear to be authoritative, are by a wide range of authors and come from a representative spread of dates, mostly quite recent. No authority is cited disproportionately often, and I see from JSTOR that the most frequently cited authors (Ehling, Leveson et al) are cited regularly there also.

The citation style is consistently applied. One small point: I notice that some references to contiguous pages have the page numbers separated by an en-dash and others by a comma. I'm guessing that the former refer to sentences that start on one page and end on the next, and the latter to two unconnected sentences on successive pages, which is fine. Just checking that it's deliberate. I have no other comments on the sourcing. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Indeed, it is deliberate. A dash indicates a sentence starting in one page and ending in the next. A comma insicate two senteces in different pages

From FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon, first off, there are some duplinks, you cna highlight them by installing this script (it's pretty easy to do):[26] FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• "before assuming the thrones" Why plural?
• "Alfred Bellinger rejected" You present all other writers mentioned.

Thanks for this. I removed the duplinks and fixed the rest

• "Coin of Antiochus VIII" You should state his relation to the subject in the caption.
• "the Syrian king cast aside the epithet Philometor" As you do with Philopator after, I think you can repeat what this word means here (the reader may not remember, and therefore not connect the dots).
• Since it appears to have importance according to the text, list the various gods depicted on coins in their captions?
• You now only link Nabataeans at second mention instead of first. Judeans could also be linked.

Done

• Link Semitic to something? Otherwise, everything looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Done

• Support - another nice article to the Seleucid collection. How many to go? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Seleucus VI Epiphanes and maybe I will re-write Alexander II Zabinas then I think Im done with the Seleucids and will go back to write about ancient cities from a much older period in the Levant

CommentsSupport from Gog the Mild

A fine article, although I agree with Tim Riley's introductory comment above. If you didn't want to have it peer reviewed then submitting a GOCE Request would not have delayed it long and would hopefully have picked up most of the fiddly bits which we are now flagging up.

But it was submitted. You can see a note of that indicating that it was copy edited by the GOCE in the talk page of the article. I will work on your notes soon.

You are quite right. I didn't think to check the talk page. Apologies.

No need to apologize. Thanks for taking the time to review this

A general comment. The text contains a high incidence of semi colons. IMO it would read better, and more easily, with fewer. In most cases of their use I would suggest replacing them with a full stop. I have only flagged this up below in the more obvious cases.

• "He tried to appease the public by giving importance to local Semitic gods" The language here seems clunky. Perhaps something like 'He attempted to appease the public by promoting the importance of the local Semitic gods'?
• "The Seleucid Empire, based in Syria, disintegrated in the second century BC as a result of dynastic feuds and Egyptian interference; a long civil war led Syria to fragmentation as pretenders from the royal family fought for the throne." Optional, make this two sentences; I see no need for the semi-colon. Non-optional: replace "led Syria to fragmentation". I suggest 'caused Syria to fragment' or similar.
• "However, almost nothing is known about the early life of Demetrius III, who might have been the eldest son himself, being born anytime between 125 BC and 111 BC" Tense: 'having been born'.
• "All his Damascene coins have the aforementioned epithets inscribed" It is not clear whether they a) all have all of the (three) epithets inscribed b) all have one, two or three of them inscribed, or c) each have one and only one of the three inscribed. Similarly with Philometor and Euergetes.

Clarified. I suggest checking the new form

Looks fine to me.

• Does the epithet Callinicus only appear on coins from Pieria?

Clarified. Yes, only in this city

• "Demetrius III probably sought to emphasise his Ptolemaic descent" Optional: '(Egyptian)' or '(royal Egyptian)' after "Ptolemaic".
• "Eucaerus appeared as a later development" Do you mean to use the word "development" here? If so, what do you mean by it? (I assume, possibly incorrectly, that Eucaerus arose from a mis-transcription and/or a misreading of a text?)
• "but are handed down through ancient literature only" Optional: 'but are handed down only through ancient literature'.
• "This war ended in 101 BC and took place in Coele-Syria" Put in chronological order; ie 'This war took place in Coele-Syria and ended in 101 BC'

• "noting that it was not rare for a king to double his production in a single year during military campaigns, which was the case for Seleucus VI, who was preparing for war against his uncle Antiochus IX" "which was the case..." will be taken by a reader to mean that Seleucus VI "double[d] his production in a single year", which I assume is not your intention.

• "The academic consensus prefers the year 96 BC for the death of Antiochus VIII." Delete "the year". (It is broadly accepted that 96 BC was a year, you don't need to state it.)
• "Demetrius III landed in Seleucia in Pieria". "in" twice in three words; perhaps 'Demetrius III landed in Seleucia at Pieria'?

Im not sure this will be correct. The city is not called "at Pieria" in the majority of sources.

Never mind, let it lie.

• "Demetrius then... Demetrius III then". Replace one "then" with 'next'.
• "then it is logical to assume". I think that you should state that it is Ehling who believes that his own reasoning is logical (he would, wouldn't he?) or cite a non-Ehling source supporting the statement.
• "are evidence that Demetrius III might have refounded Damascus and gave it the dynastic name Demetrias" Tense: 'given', not "gave".
• ""who possibly also conferred the right of asylum for his capital" Clunky. A minimal change would be to replace "for" with 'on'. (Rights are conferred on someone or something.)
• "but Demetrius ruled a contracted realm, where the local cults were very important" Is the contracted state of the realm relevant to the level of importance of the local cults? If so please exlain how. If not, delete "contracted" and the comma.
• " Marrying the supreme goddess indicated that the king considered himself the manifestation of Syria's supreme god and Atargatis' partner, Hadad; the practise was started at an unknown date by Antiochus IV (died 164 BC), who was the first to employ the radiate crown, and who ritually married the goddess Diana, considered a manifestation of Atargatis in Syria, in the deity's most important sanctuary in Hierapolis-Bambyce." [irony] A little on the long side for a sentence. [/irony] Optional: break into two, or, better, three sentences.

Changed wording. I suggest checking the new form

• Link Alexander Jannaeus.

It is linked in the Manner of succession section. Linking again will be duplink

Oops. Just checking that you are alert.

That's about half way and it's dinner time. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "the king regained Damascus in 221 SE (92/91 BC)" Upper case K.
• "and none of his Antiochene coins contain a date" 'bear', not "contain".
• "the Syrian king had 3,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry. In the Jewish War, Demetrius III commanded 14,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry" Could you put infantry and cavalry in the same order in both examples.
• "The date of the campaign is unclear in Josephus's account; the year 88 BC is traditionally considered the date of Demetrius III's Judaean campaign, but numismatic evidence shows that coin production increased massively in Damascus in 222 SE (91/90 BC) and 223 SE (90/89 BC); this indicates that Demetrius was securing the necessary funds for his campaign, making the year 89 BC more likely as the date of the invasion." Another overlong sentence.
• Link Pesher Nahum

Linked in the Reign section

I was clearly having a bad day.

• "The motive leading Demetrius to attack Judaea might not have had anything to do with the call of the Pharisees; if Alexander Jannaeus took advantage of Demetrius's absence in 93 BC to wrest control of Damascus, then the invasion was probably in retribution against Judaea." Lose the semi colon.
• "Following the failed attempts" - what failed attempts? If you mean the failed call on the mercenaries to defect then attempts should be singular. (Or you should specify more than one attempt earlier in the text.) Can I suggest 'Following this failed attempt...'?
• "The Judaean king fled to the nearby mountains; according to Josephus, when the 6,000 Judaean rebels in Demetrius III's ranks saw this, they felt pity for their king and deserted Demetrius to join Alexander Jannaeus." Lose the semi colon.
• "It is more likely that events in Syria forced Demetrius III to conclude his invasion of Judaea; probably in 88 BC, Antiochus X died while fighting the Parthians, and this must have forced Demetrius III to rush north and fill the power vacuum before Philip I." Lose the semi colon.
• "According to Josephus, following the conclusion of his Judaean campaign, Demetrius III turned on Philip;[81] during this conflict, which is datable to 225 SE (88/87 BC), soldiers from Antioch were mentioned for the first time in the ranks of Demetrius III, indicating that he took control of the Syrian capital in this year" And again.
• " According to Josephus, Demetrius III was captured and sent to Parthia; he was treated by the Parthian king with "great honour" until he died of illness. And again.

Solidly and densely referenced to very reliable sources. However:

• There are several p. or pp. inaccuracies. Eg cites 58, 59, 61 and others.
• Cite 77 is to Hoover 2011. There are five works by Hoover in the sources, none dated 2011.

Citations fixed. I will move to the copy editing soon

That's it for now. Broadly it is looking good. See what you think of my comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gog the Mild. Im sorry for the delay. I was busy with exams. I implemented your notes, but you might want to check my edits as I explained in my answers to some of your notes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no need to hurry. You should have pinged me. You have satisfactorily addressed all of my comments. I want to give it a final read through before supporting, but I don't anticipate problems. You have produced an impressive article. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2018 [27].

---

Western Australian emergency of March 1944

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article covers a little-remembered, but significant, incident during World War II. In March 1944 the Australian and US military leadership in the South West Pacific became concerned that a powerful Japanese naval force was headed for the important Western Australian port of Fremantle. In response, reinforcements were rushed to the area, several American and Dutch submarines put to sea and the city's air and coastal defences were placed on alert. The tension increased over several days, and on 10 March air raid sirens were sounded when what appeared to be an enemy aircraft was detected. However, it all soon proved to a false alarm. The only Japanese force at sea was a small group of warships which conducted an unsuccessful raid against Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the strategic situation in early 1944, an example of the limitations of intelligence information, and a reminder that the war was not yet won.

I started this article in 2009, and greatly expanded it in 2016. It passed a GA review in early March this year, and an A-class review in April. It has since been expanded, and draws on all the relevant books I could locate at the National Library of Australia. I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met, and thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

• Recusing coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR but have gone through again top to bottom -- as always, don't be shy about questioning elements of my copyedit; outstanding points:
  • "During early- to mid-March 1944" -- I think we could afford to simply say "In March 1944"; the current opening is a little fussy I think.
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was thought that the purpose of any such raid would be to divert Allied forces away from the offensives they were preparing to launch in the Pacific." -- For the sake of the uninitiated, is "they" the Japanese or the Allies? In the context it could really be either.
    • I've tweaked the sentence to make this a bit clearer - does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I tried to simplify/clarify further after reviewing Odgers, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Ian Rose: That looks great, thanks Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Source review
  • Links all work and formatting seems fine.
  • Generally no issues with reliability except re. Combinedfleet.com, I could see at least one of its contributors appeared to be a published author but I wouldn't mind getting your rationale for what makes it a reliable source.
    • Bio details of the site's contributors are at [28]. The site's managing editor is the author of two well-reviewed professionally published works on the Imperial Japanese Navy. One of the authors of the article cited (Bob Hackett) has served as an expert consultant on the IJN on multiple projects and written professionally-published articles on the topic. The website, including the records of ship histories such as that cited here, has also been used as a reference in multiple professionally-published works on the Pacific War [29]. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Image review
  • Links all work.
  • Licences appear satisfactory.
• Structure is straightforward and the level of detail is appropriate IMO. A caveat is that I'm fairly familiar with this event so may take for granted things that might not be so obvious to the lay reader.

Well done as usual Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I commented pretty early so have run through changes since then and made only a couple of tweaks -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks again Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Hahnchen

• Do sources actually call this incident the "Western Australian Emergency"? I understand "emergency" as a conflict, or a response to conflict. In this case, nothing happened. We should not be declaring an emergency when it is a false alarm. - hahnchen 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There isn't a consistent name for these events in the sources, with the main sources (the Australian official history of the war) not naming it at all. I picked this name as "emergency" is used in some sources and it seemed to best reflect what occurred. Some sources also use "scare", but this doesn't capture the fact that the highest levels of the Australian and US militaries regarded it as a genuine emergency at the time, with the response reflecting this (Gill notes that Rear-Admiral Christie referred to it as having been a "threat" in a letter written soon after the events). Remember that intelligence information is often partial and governments need to take precautionary action. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The point I'm making is that is a false alarm. There may be an emergency response to a false alarm, but that in itself is not an emergency. I think "scare" would be a better term. If the main sources do not name it at all, then I don't think the event is significant enough for Wikipedia to term it an emergency. - hahnchen 11:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • "Scare" implies some kind of panic, which none of the sources support. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I think an emergency can be as much about perception as reality, and in this case the urgent measures taken seem consistent with describing it as an emergency, even though those measures ultimately proved unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Then just call it a false alarm. I don't think "scare" implies panic any more so than "emergency", and does not imply some formal state of emergency. The article title should reflect reality, not perception. If I call the fire brigade with a hoax call, the response is exactly consistent with an emergency, only it isn't an emergency at all. - hahnchen 00:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
            • No sources use that term. There was in fact a formal emergency, with the Australian and US militaries activating pre-prepared plans to reinforce WA and activate its defences (as described in the article). Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
              • "The article title should reflect reality, not perception" -- sorry, I find that comment a bit simplistic. The perception relates to how authorities saw the situation at the time; as Nick notes, they took emergency measures based on that perception, and those measures were certainly real. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                • The emergency services would respond to a hoax call as if it were an emergency, that does not make it an emergency. Considering an emergency in the context of military history, the first thing that comes to mind is the Mau Mau Uprising which is on a completely different scale, with the government declaring a formal state of emergency. Nick notes the events are not significant enough to be named in the main sources. Using the term "alert" or "mobilisation" instead of emergency would be more in line with NPOV and OR policies. - hahnchen 13:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                  • The events are significant - they are covered by several pages in the official histories and discussed in a number of other works. There just isn't a dominant name. No sources use "alert" or "mobilisation". Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
                    • Alert was taken from The Western Australian (who also use "scare"), and the official history preceding the threat quote. The current article title confuses an emergency response (such as the emergency response to a hoax call) with an actual emergency. There isn't a dominant name, so pick one that doesn't. - hahnchen 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Hawkeye7

Looks pretty good. Some comments:

• 154 submarines made 341 combat patrols from the port The reader might infer from the foregoing that these were all US submarines, but some were British and Dutch.
  • Good point - I've noted when the Dutch and British arrived. This makes sense of why Dutch subs were lurking of Rottnest island later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer Defence Corps (VDC) militia personnel The reader might infer that the VDC was part of the Militia. Suggest changing "militia" to "part-time"
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• General Headquarters directed General George Kenney should be Lieutenant General George Kenney
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The two US Navy submarine tenders based at Fremantle were sailed to Albany Suggest deleting "were"
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The commander of the raiding force and Tone's captain were convicted of this crime after the war and imprisoned. Not sure what's going on here. The commander of the raiding force was Rear Admiral Naomasa Sakonju. He wasn't imprisoned; he was hanged.[30] (Tone's captain, already mentioned in the article, was Haruo Mayuzumi. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in 1947 but was released in 1951.)
  • Given that I did most of the work on the GA on the raid, I shouldn't have got that wrong! I've removed the penalty as it's not really relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• fn 29 should be pp. 388-390
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Link Stanley Kirby in the references.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Link Indian Ocean (since you've linked the Pacific)
  • Linked in the lead Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Fighter aircraft is linked in "Japanese redeployments" but is first used in the previous section
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion: I would move the ships over to the right and the map to the left, so the ships were sailing into the article.
  • I take your point, but that would mean that all the images are on the right-hand side. Moving the map to the LHS to offset this looks a bit odd to me (especially as it uses portrait dimensions, so is long). Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot for these comments Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support No worries. This is a great article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Nick, some minor suggestions/questions...

• Infobox pic caption "One of the anti-aircraft guns assigned to the defence of Fremantle during a training exercise in November 1943" - possibly add comma after Fremantle?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• augmented the Australian forces, and conducted - is that comma necessary?
  • Nope: fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• conduct raids into the Indian Ocean - south into?
  • There was concern that they could have headed west and attacked Ceylon or the Bay of Bengal. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• east towards Surabaya.[18][13][19] - ref order
• improve the area's defences.[18][13] - ref order
• East Indies on 16 March.[17][16] - ref order
  • All three fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Perth - no dab needed?
  • No, the result of the large Perth RM a few years ago was that the Australian city ended up as Perth. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• in which he stated while - insert 'that' after 'stated'?
  • Thanks, that reads better Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Perth–Fremantle v Fremantle–Perth - intentional?
  • Not at all - I've standardised on "Perth–Fremantle" Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. 452 and 457 Squadrons - Nos?
  • Ian usually pings me on that! Fixed Nick-D (talk)
• Blair book, Silent Victory : - is space before colon intentional?
  • No - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments Jenny. As a note, I'm going to be out of town until the weekend and won't be able to monitor this review until then I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We can remove the Perth dab? I'm happy to support (and that the emergency didn't turn into the 'Western Australian attack of March 1944.' Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jenny Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Kaiser matias

• "These included six Royal Australian Air Force flying squadrons." This feels like a sentence fragment to me, and I'm wondering if it could maybe be added to the subsequent sentence, with a semi-colon replacing the period, or something else?
  • That would make the previous sentence over-complicated, and I think it's considered good practice to have a mix of long and short sentences. The six squadrons were the main reinforcements dispatched. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• ..."and most units were stood down..." This may be my unfamiliarity with military terminology, but this phrase seems odd. Is there another way to state they were not on (what I presume to be) high alert? Or is it acceptable wording?
  • I think that that term is quite widely used? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Sidepoint: neat to see the Pacific theatre with the Japanese territory in white and Allied in red; seems most maps have it the otherway around.
• "...eventually became the US Navy's second-largest submarine base." Would it be worth noting what the largest one is, if only to clarify that it is the largest base globally, or just in Australia?
  • Done - Pearl Harbor was the only larger base Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• "...which stated that while Japanese forces could conduct raids against Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean: "it is not thought that serious danger..." Is a colon appropriate here? Feel that should be a comma.
  • Agreed - fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• "...six hours, rather than the normal warning time of 24 hours." I thought there was something in MOS:NUMERAL regarding mixing spelt out numbers and numerals, but it doesn't seem like it. Either way seems it should be consistent with one or the other (either 6 and 24, or six and twenty-four).
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• "The commander of the raiding force, Vice Admiral Naomasa Sakonju, and Tone's captain were convicted of this crime after the war." Would it be relevant to note that they (or Sakonju at least) were executed for this?
  • As noted in response to earlier comments, I don't think that's relevant to this article. The GA on the raid covers it. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Not a lot to go over, more questions and clarifications on my end. Interesting article overall. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, please with the explanations and the article as a whole. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for reviewing the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 [31].

---

The Princesse de Broglie

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Painting by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres completed in 1853. Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béar, known as Pauline, was highly intelligent and a noted beauty, but was extremely shy, and died young. The portrait is one of the artist's finest, and contains elements of both high fashion and deep pathos. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Louis_XIII_style_Ovolo_frame_(for_Ingres's_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie)_MET_86AG_288R4_p.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Ingres_Portrait_of_the_Princesse_de_Broglie_Coat_of_Arms.jpg

• File:Duc_Albert_de_Broglie_par_E.Appert.JPEG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

PD tag added, but not sure what "a tag for the original work" means. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The current tag reflects the copyright of the photographer; I'm looking for a tag reflecting the copyright of the artist in each case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Hi Ceoil. I really enjoyed this article. I'm close to supporting. Here are a few comments.

• "He approached Ingres around 1850 to undertake on the portrait." Not sure if this wording is due to regional differences, but I would say "to undertake the portrait".
• "The painting's central motif was established in the earliest studies, when her oval face, arched eyebrows, and habit of folding her arms with one stuffed into the opposing sleeve was already established." Should this be "were already established" as it is three things? Also, it's a minor point, but if there is a way to avoid repeating "established", that would be preferable.
• "Her left wrist contains a bracelet of roped pearls, the bracelet on her right is made of red enameled and diamond set gold links." Two independent clauses separated by a comma.
• "Her neck is unusually elongated, and her arms seem boneless or dislocated, especially her left forearm appears to be under modeled and lacking in musculature." I think "especially" doesn't act as a subordinating conjunction, so in this sentence as well, there are two independent clauses separated by a comma.
• "It contains a number of pentimenti, including the laying of the contours for her hair and yellow chair." I think "it" refers to the painting, but these are separated by a sentence about her facial features, so it's less clear than would be ideal.
• "The horizontal bands are about 2.5 cm wide, and are composed from yellow paint on either side of her head near the earrings, and seem to have been used to plot the positioning of the moldings." After the first clause, there are two clauses of the same type beginning with "and", making the sentence feel run-on. Moisejp (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Moise, these are very helpful. Will work through. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Moise, have these done, but can you check as I am not very technical re prose. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. Thank you, my concerns above are all addressed. Your prose is very readable and has an especially nice flow to it. I hesitate to mention another issue I noticed while rereading the article just now, as it may require you to rework prose in the lead that personally I think is a quite nice, interesting opening to the article, but I'm concerned it may not satisfy WP:Lead. Some of the facts in the lead are not mentioned in the main narrative, and some of the main points in the article are not in the lead, including mention of the preparatory studies, extended details about the description of the painting, and a brief summary of the painting's reception. One idea is perhaps you could restate or move some of the lead's interesting details (such as Pauline's extended name, Albert's liking of the Comtesse d'Haussonville portrait, and most of the details in the lead's second and third paragraphs) into the main text, and add to the lead a sentence or two summarizing each of the sections in the article? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ok, will do. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Update is that have worked on the lead to better reflect the article body. Now need to do the reverse. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Moise, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, have you finished your changes in both directions? Just let me know, I'll be happy to take a look, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moisejp, yes, has been extensively reworked. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm working my way though it. I was hoping to finish tonight but doesn't look like I'm quite going to be able to. Just a few brief comments so far:

• "The eventual painting is considered one of Ingres' finest later-period portraits of women, along with the Comtesse d'Haussonville, Portrait of Baronne de Rothschild and Madame Moitessier." Does this need its citation in the lead? I haven't had a chance to see whether the point is mentioned in the main text, but it seems to me like the citation could go in the main text rather than the lead.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It is assumed that he left so few as some were lost or destroyed": The meaning of this doesn't seem clear to me. We find out later there are five or six surviving sketches and an equal number that are lost. But I can't quite catch the relationship between us knowing some were lost/destroyed and it being assumed that's why he left so few?

  I trimmed this as was confused also! Ceoil (talk)

• "The painting is composed from grey, white, blue and yellow and gold hues." I'm not sure how to parse the end of this. Should it be "grey, white, blue, yellow and gold"? Or do one or both of the instances of "and" designate sets of colours? Moisejp (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done Ceoil (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks great, and I am happy to support. I made some edits, see if they work for you. One minor final suggestion you could consider is that "The majority of critics noted Ingres' attention to detail in describing her clothes, accessories and decor, and saw an artist at the height of his creativity, with a few invoking the precision of van Eyck" kind of repeats the earlier "The costume and decor are painted with a supreme precision, crispness and realism that art historians have compared to Jan van Eyck." The nuance is slightly different but there is some overlap. An idea for your consideration. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for support. Agree with suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Ewulp

Also close to supporting. I think there's a problem with citation #21 for the date of the frame; the Met page description is apparently for a replacement frame created in the US ca.1950-1960. Ewulp (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ewulp, have clarified this, but may expand somewhat on this interesting point during the week. I do like that frame, I have to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tinterow was under the impression that the current frame "seems to be the original", but the Met must have dug deeper since 1999, and they now give the provenance as "Robert Lehman (made 1950-60 for Ingres's Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie (1975.1.186), around the time the painting was purchased by Robert Lehman (1958))." Ewulp (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems woth adding, will look into it. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ewulp, have updated a few areas, and hoping to add a sect on the frame itself. Researching. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that its very unusual that, on wiki, we are allowed to show the frame for something like this, we should have a section and have been gathering sources. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ewulp, section on the frame now developed. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Ewulp (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• The bit about Albert considering himself too ugly for a double portrait puzzles me & should be sourced. Was this just banter, or had Ingres seriously proposed to paint his portrait and Albert demurred? That would seem uncharacteristic; after 1845 Ingres' only male portraits were self-portraits and the little monochrome profile of Jérôme Napoléon Bonaparte. Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  It was banter made many years later - no offer to Ingres was made, I suspect Albert was gently praising Pauline's memory by comparing her appearance to his own (I know how he feels, being plug ugly with a very, beloved, intelligent and fancy wife). Thats the whole point of the article; I cant imagine how a loss like that could be borne. I appear to have forgotten to add the source when adding last weekend, actually there was more in the body which was reffed but I seem to have lost while working from text files...hold on. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  Hi Ewulp, Ceoil, are we done here or was there more to come from either of you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ready to support pending a fix for this last difficulty. I'd excise the line in question, which could mislead the reader (as Ingres rarely painted pendant portraits and no such thing was evidently contemplated here). Alternatively, the line could be rewritten to clarify that it was a sentiment expressed years later, & a source added. Ewulp (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ewulp, have been caught up, will get to this today....Ceoil (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  Ewulp, have removed altogether. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  I think it's there: Support for FA. Ewulp (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a highly attractive topic, with "high fashion and deep pathos" ;) - As usual, I'll comment while reading. I confess that I find the title unusual, with it's mix of English and I-don't-know-what-else, and no open connection to her name? Curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• "As with all of Ingres' female portraits, her body seems to lack a solid bone structure." This comes as a surprise when still talking about the sitter and her relationships.

  Ok, have repositioned, but mindful that the lead/body balance needs workl see also above...working. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  will keep looking, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Pauline was aged 28 at the time of its completion." Can we please also know for how long she was married, or at least the date of the wedding, to do the math?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• How about first saying that she was intelligent, then shy?

  o dear. Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• How about first letting her have sons, then get sick and die, rather than the sons suddenly mentioned after her death?

  Think I will move the 5 sons bit to the commission section. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can we avoid "different poses" and "various poses" in close succession?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I will say later if I miss things in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Commission

• I think I'd expect the details about her bio and character here, and only a summary of that in the lead.
• Chronology? (first they dine in 1850, then they get married in 1845, for example.)
• "Albert" - should be speak about a prime minister by first name only?

  Not sure; I commonly use first names when discussing people with the same family name. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  Also not sure, just asking, - different names in a family often mean father and sons, and I see no problem with the sons, when young. A prime minister seems a bit different, to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think the sketches would be better a para below, and think the lead might clarify that the "nude" means professional models.

  Switches to a gallery for different reasons Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do we have any photo of Pauline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  No. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

... studies

• "the princess" vs. "the Princess"? vs. "the Princesse" - still curious, and no answer yet. Was Princess her title? (I seriously have no idea about such matters.)

  Princess is the French title of the painting, and all sources add the "e" at the end. "the princess" needs to be fixed. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  Note she wasnt a princess, but he styled himself as a prince. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  Just looking at the online sources, the Met Museum has the long title (which should probably appear somewhere, but not as the article title), and another has Portrait of the Princesse de Broglie, which we can shorten, but why not to Princesse de Broglie, - this "the" only makes sense in the context "of the", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• quote: that he was "killing [my] eyes on the ...

For my taste, the [my] is hard to understand, - and the later [his second wife] even harder, because it's not clear that it's the painter's (wasn't he speaking in the first person?), not the prime minister's.

• Yes, good spot - Have gone with [his] in the first instance. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a bit of this attitude ("make me suffer") in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'd like to read in the lead that it seems not to have been his favourite project, rather a burden ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

ok. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Description

• I miss that she is standing behind the chair. - Yes, I see it, but a blind reader wouldn't.

  Dont understand this Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  Someone blind would not know from the description that she stands behind a chair, leaning on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  I looked again: yes, we read it, in the quote in reception, "... armchair placed in front of her", but that's late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• hair colour? and is that really "tightly"?

  Obv black and yes Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Rue de l’Université, Paris?

  ok fine, but its a 404 for me Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  my bad: Rue de l’Université, Paris --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• For me, a nightdress is something to go to bed with, the other evening gown or evening dress. Learning.

  ok grand. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• Fine, but again: a bit to the lead please.

General: I am no friend of section header displaced by left images (twice right now), but things may change by rearranged text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks Gerda, these are nearly all very good suggestions. A few will take me time. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. Will look again, but not right now, - some things have to come before, and it's very nice weather. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Was a beautiful day out. Two general comments: "alt" texts for all images are desirable, and no fixed image sizes, to make user preferences work. I like the changes so far! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you had a nice day, its been drissly here, but its been a lovely October as October's go. The feedback so far has been great from all, am almost there....Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Will add alt text, but for a short article fixed image sizes may render as huge and be an issue (I experimented on a few screens and they swamped everything). Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So we seem to agree about "no fixed image size"? Anyway, I like your changes, trust that you will add the alts, and support. Which doesn't mean that I won't return for minor comments ;) - Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I havnt forgotten you o/s points, all of which have greatly helped. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT text now added. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

A nice read - queries below...

• The latter part of the Provenance section would go better in the Reception - actually it might make sense to combine the two sections and thread material chronologically.

• Err "acute" means short term - which doesn't follow with "throughout her life"....

Hi Cas, to me acute means short-term in medical rather than common usage, but see the gap and have rephrased. My hunch came from spending the first 15 years of my adult life listening to the Smiths:) [32] re Provenance, yes right and have re-giged. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

ok all good now, support on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that no spot-checks are needed here: It looks like each ref has the minimum information needed. Is Naef, Hans. "Eighteen Portrait Drawings by Ingres". Master Drawings, volume 4, no. 3, 1966 a reliable source? I am wondering the same about "Harris, Beth; Zucker, Steven. "Ingres, Princesse de Broglie". Khan Academy, October 2009. Retrieved 23 September 2017" as our article Khan Academy raises some eyebrows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, have added link to the JSTOR article written by Hans Naef. Harris and Zucker are art historians and founders of Smarthistory, and both are very familiar to me, and wiki in general - there was a partnership at one stage, I believe lead by smallbones, so comfortable with including. Its the funding of Kahn rather than its output that is questioned, and indeed raises eye brows. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 [33].

---

Wōdejebato

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a guyot in the Marshall Islands close to the Pikinni Atoll (better known as "Bikini") of nuclear tests and controversy fame. It was discovered in 1944 and is among the best researched seamounts of this type. These seamounts are believed to form when volcanic islands become atolls and these then move through waters which for whatever reason do not support the persistence of coral reefs (and their Mesozoic precursors), causing the atoll to drown. Currently Lōʻihi Seamount seamount is the only FA we have on submarine mountains. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Seems like there are a lot of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[34]
• An intro this short should probably not have more than three paragraphs.
• Since the Bathymetry image is the only one that actually shows Wōdejebato, I wonder if it could be placed in the infobox?
• "Wōdejebato was formerly called Sylvania" So when was the name changed, and by who?
• "a ship which was involved in its first mapping." When?
• "Later, rocks were dredged" When?
• You should state in what ocean this is located, also in the intro.
• How is the word pronounced?

Took action on these. Did read through sources for reason of the rename and didn't find anything explicit. The GEBCO gazetteer doesn't even know about this seamount. Not sure how to get a pronunciation here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth" Until at?
• Is this suppsoed to be UK or US English? The location would indicate US, but you have metres and kilometres.
• "Aptian and Albian 115-94 million years ago" Add these are ages, and probably that they were during the early Cretaceous period.
• "only forbrief" Seems space is needed.

Um, not sure if I understand what "until at" means. I mostly write in UK English and did here as well (Wōdejebato is not really strongly tied to the US). Got the other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Instead of "until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth", I'd expect it to say "until at 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth". Also, seems "early Cretaceous" wasn't added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Based on fossil data" Of what kind? Drilled microfossils?
• "when the most recent lavas were erupted." Is "were" really needed here?
• "contemporaneously to Wōdejebato" With?
• There are a lot of technical terms here, in other articles, equivalent terms would be asked to be explained in text.
• "Vegetation[89] including ferns and fungi[90] grew on the exposed island," When?
• "Skeletal shapes have been recognized in the limestones as well" What is meant by this? Actual skeletons? Fossils?

Got these as well as the ones I missed yesterday. Regarding technical terms, I don't think the article is too bad with them, although the problem is that many of them don't lend themselves to short explanations. Are there specific terms you are concerned about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Terms like phreatomagmatic, diagenetically, parasitic cone. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Cretaceous, crust, and foraminifera are overlinked.

Got the overlinks and some technical terms. I'll see to make a pass through the article for technical terms, unless someone wants to make a laundry list of terms in need of explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "unlike Wōdejebato Pikinni" I think a comma is needed here.
• "rudist reefs covered formed an atoll or atoll-like structure, covering" Seems there is some verb weirdness here.
• I think the intro could mentioned it was named for a god.

Indeed; got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, could still be nice to find out the circumstance around the namimg, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the bathymetric and hotspots maps

• File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source of the data in this map?

• File:Marine-microfossils-major_hg.jpg: is a link available to confirm that licensing? Not seeing it at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Increased the size of the bathymetric map. The hotspot map has no source and upon looking closely it seems wrong too: It attributes Tuvalu neé Ellice Islands to the Macdonald hotspot but as discussed in Arago hotspot it's actually that hotspot which is most likely responsible for the birth of Tuvalu; I've thus removed it. Re the foraminifera image it looks like the uploader is one of the authors of the book (c.f commons:User:Hgrobe) that is the source and that they licensed it during the upload to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

From Cas Liber

Reading now, notes to follow.....

• It would be helpful to include some base stats in the lead - how big/high/wide it is, how far beneath sea level and how far it is from Bikini atoll. Also maybe specifying it is in the northern Marshall Islands

• I'd not leave "guyot" without a more accessible explanation in the first sentence of the lead (tablemount is easier to understand from the get-go as its components instantly give an idea what it is.

• Article would be more accessible if it had date ranges rather than (or even as well as) epochs I suspect.

• Have there been no sea probes exploring it at all? i.e. what about current fauna and flora on it? If we don't know, then some discussion would be good.

• ...many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist, for example at Pikinni. some of which still exist? Or split and "some still exist"? as one would think "formerly" implies a category that excludes still extant atolls....?

More later...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll action these and any follow up comments this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I got most of these things. Re sea probes: One of the most interesting facts about the seafloor is that we know less about it than about the surface of the Moon, and of the seamount series I've been writing (Wōdejebato, Limalok, Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot and Resolution Guyot, plus Lo-En, MIT Guyot, Ruwitūn̄tūn̄ and Takuyo-Daisan) only Horizon has been investigated for its present-day life. Hence why Wōdejebato has nothing to say about it. Re epochs I've done some clarification, would the other epoch names merit similar editing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is one more needing a date in the lead - also I think something got mussed up in the editing of my other issue raised above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

''Wōdejebato originated in the Southern Hemisphere and was moved by plate tectonics into the northern hemisphere - caps or no caps?

​ Got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. There are some repeated words but I can't see how they could be changed without losing meaning. Hence I can't at the moment see anything actionable, but others still might. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I provided a pre-FAC review for this, so I have few remaining comments. A couple of points before I support:

• A number of hotspots such as the Macdonald hotspot, the Rarotonga hotspot, the Rurutu hotspot and the Society hotspot may have been involved in the formation of Wōdejebato: suggest "The Macdonald, Rarotonga, Rurutu, and Society hotspots may have been involved in its formation." There's a similar sentence at the end of the "Composition" subsection; I'd recommend the same shortening there.
• I think you can eliminate note b. I'd put "(a nuclear bomb test)" after the mention of Operation Crossroads in the main text, and just cut the second sentence; you already have "using mainly seismic data" in the body, which is all that's needed.
• The first sentence of "Local setting" has footnote [1] after the word "the", which seems odd. Is that really the right placement for that citation? Similarly in the next paragraph, "[1]" follows the word "a".
• the passage of the seamount through the equatorial upwelling zone[93] where the water was too hot: too hot for what? If this refers to the harmful influence of equatorial waters mentioned as implied in the next sentence, I'd attach that phrase to the following sentence instead: "...through the equatorial upwelling zone. The water in this region may have been too hot for the reef to survive: other guyots..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

​ I think I got all of these comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Asked for at the top of WT:FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Anything else needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Wugapodes

I hope to go through this a little more thoroughly tomorrow, it generally looks like a wonderful article. If I felt like I could easily fix something myself, I boldly did so, but feel free to revert any of them and we can discuss it. Here are my thoughts and changes based on my review of the sourcing so far:

• Inline citation should use a consistent style. Currently it is a mix of shortened footnotes and long form citations. The long form citations should be part of the "Sources" section and the inline citation be a shortened footnote. It can be the other way as well, if you like that better, but it should be consistent.
• I spot checked the claim about Wōdejebato being evaluated for mining which was cited to Masuda, et al. (1991). I rearranged the paragraph to better align with the source. Before it had a semicolon which implied that it was under evaluation for mining ferromanganese, but the source evaluated it for a number of mineral resources present there, so I think it goes better as a separate sentence after the entire crust composition is described. The main claim is correct however.
• The two citations to Wilson and Opdyke (1996) are supported by their source and the pages are correct.
• The citation to Hein, et al. (1988) is supported by its source at the given page.
• A mostly aesthetic point: I don't like that articles that are in Haggerty, et al. (1995) are listed as an indented sublist. I think it's better to have one alphabetized list, rather than a list within a list. The long form citations are meant to be scanned quickly, and the indentation pulls focus as well as interrupting the alphabetization of the other sources.

I plan to come back and give more detailed attention to the formatting and quality of sourcing, but what I see so far looks good. Of my comments, only the first one needs action, so once the inline citations are consistent I should be able to support pending my look at the formatting. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that a large number of images don't have alt text or the alt text field is empty. MOS:ACCIM advises the use of alt text for all non-decorative images, even if it's just "See caption" it makes the images more useful to readers using screen readers. See WP:ALT for suggestions on how to write helpful alt text. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, in order:

• You know, I believed that such a combination between "shortened footnotes" and "long form citations" was acceptable when some sources need several page numbers and others don't c.f Ubinas. I can do this change but I am a little confused.
• I think part of the problem with that was that "ferromanganese crust" is not all that consistently used, but the correction you applied sounds good.
• Ugh. That was done in this edit, I've restored the previous format but left some of the other changes in.
• Added some ALT text but I am not sure if it works on Infobox Seamount maps. Also applied the same fixes to Limalok, Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot, Resolution Guyot and 1257 Samalas eruption

Wugapodes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You do seem to be right about mixing shortened footnotes and long form citations, so I've struck that suggestion. I've taken a look at the formatting:

• There was variation in the use of hyphens or dashes for page number ranges, so for those shortened footnotes which used hyphens, I changed them to dashes.
• The "Sources" section is a mixture of CS1 and CS2 style, {{Citation}} uses CS1 parameters but the output format is CS2 while {{Cite book}}, for example, is CS1. One style should be chosen so that the formatting of the citations is consistent.

Thanks for adding the alt text, you did a very good job with it! The sources are of high quality, and though I'm no expert, the sourcing seems to be a good survey of the literature given the diversity of languages and publication years. Once the citation style of the "Sources" section is resolved I will support. Jo-Jo Eumerus Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I think I got the CS2-->CS1 change. And thanks for the comment on the sources, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources look good to me, Support. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 [35].

---

John Doubleday (restorer)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talented as he was, the British Museum's first restorer owes his renown to the actions of a drunkard. John Doubleday is best remembered as the man who restored the Portland Vase after it was smashed by a young man at the end of a week-long bender; along the way, he also testified in criminal trials, traveled internationally, and sold Shakespearean artifacts. Or at least so he said.

In its previous nomination this article attracted the support of three reviewers (thanks, Casliber, J Milburn, and KJP1); the decision to archive it was both surprising and, I believe, poorly considered. This article is thoroughly researched, well written, and by far the most comprehensive take on Doubleday available anywhere. It is featured article material. Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon, hopefully some of the earlier reviewers will return first. I ran the citation bot, and though it may seem like a screw up that it removed the publishers, it is apparently discouraged to include those when citing journal articles. Of course, feel free to revert that, but the bot did some other useful things too that could be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• I wonder if the placement of the lithograph and the shards should be swapped, so that it fits the order they are mentioned in the article?

• Done. Ideally the watercolor of the shards would go a section earlier (Portland Vase), but there isn't enough room as it stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The vase was next restored by J. W. R. Axtell in 1948–1949, and then by Nigel Williams" What is meant by this? Why did it need to be restored again?

• Added a bit more info. The adhesive used by Doubleday grew increasingly visible over time, while Axtell's grew both discolored and weak. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• "John Doubleday with his restoration" Could mention date of photo in caption.

• Reworded to "around 1845," since that's probably the date, but isn't known for certain. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• " making it "an unusual bequest"" According to who?

• Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• It seems a bit unusual that his personal information is featured last rather than first, but I guess there is good reason.

• Normally I'd do a section on his early years and then personal life later on (example), but this seemed like a better approach since almost nothing is known of the first 30-odd years of his life. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• "To the memory

of" Does "of" really have its own line on the stone?

• Yes, although it's centered and has a line on either side of it (————of————). You can make it out if you squint a bit at the full resolution photograph. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, I can't imagine further commentary would make me change my mind. Little is known about this man, so we can't be less ambiguous than the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Just a few comments:

• "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal " Is this somehow a combination of sulphur and white metal, or are they separate items, or is something else meant? I understand white metal, in British speak, to mean either a non-silver alloy or silver alloy that has not been tested at an assay office and found to be sterling.

• Some in sulphur, and other in white metal. I've added some clarifying language ("casts in coloured sulphur and in white metal" ... "He sold sulphur and white metal casts, the former which he coloured in different hues"), and linked white metal. If you're interested, there's a description on pages 74–75. In part: "He also copies silver coins in white metal, but although the copies are as accurate as those in sulphur, the metal has the color rather of tin than of silver, and I did not like them so well; still they are very fair imitations of the originals. It is his custom, when copying silver and gold coins in sulphur, to distinguish them by different colors, making the gold a deep red, &c.—he also labels them."

• "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) by a friend," maybe the parenthetical (later Sir Charles)?

• Done.

• "and the 1851 census as a New York-born "artist" who was nonetheless a British subject, " I might make clearer this is a British census, rather than US.

• Changed the wording in the lead to reflect that; from the context and the piped link, I don't think the the second mention needs the explanation.

• I don't see anything in my likely numismatic references about Doubleday (I have not conducted an extensive search, simply glanced at the indexes of some of my British numismatic references. In the archives of The Numismatist, I see a an American die engraver named John Doubleday Lovett (1819-1886} who is buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, if it's of any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and support, Wehwalt. Responses are above. John Doubleday Lovett looks to be someone else; by the time he was eleven years old the British Museum John Doubleday was in his thirties and in London. You don't happen to have a copy of Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Numismatics (2009) by Harrington Manville, do you? I don't know if Doubleday is mentioned in it, but Vlasto is supposed to be, and I haven't yet got my hands on a copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• No I don't, sorry. I checked my two volumes (Craig and Dyer) on the history of the Royal Mint. I didn't think Lovett was the same person, I was just wondering if there could be a family connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Personally, I was happy first-time around, hence my support then. I didn't myself see significant prose issues and as others, including the nominator, have remarked, I think we have to accept that gaps in the record will inevitably lead to gaps in the article. I think it is as comprehensive as it can be, and am pleased to Support again. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, I appreciate your support both then and now. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

With a few minor quibbles

• but was primarily their specialist restorer - Specialist in what sense; restorer of a particular type of object, or specialist in restoring

• I read it as the latter, but the source doesn't specify. I should be able to check the source that it cites (Oddy 1993), however, on Monday. (Thanks for that, by the way—couldn't remember why I had Oddy 1993 pulled up on WorldCat until your comment.)

• maybe first dedicated, or something. 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• The very realism for which he was lauded - drop "very "

• Done.

• Thousands of his copies filled out the collections - drop "out"

• I think "filled out" means something slightly different from "filled." The former to me means that individual holes in collections were filled with copies, while the latter means the copies formed the backbone of the collections.

Reworded as "gaps in" Ceoil (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ok Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• He also appears to have been - no need for "also"

• Changed to "he seems" (there's an earlier sentence in the paragraph that begins "He appears").

• "a masterpiece of Roman cameo glass" that is "probably the most famous glass object in the world" - this could probably be paraphrased so its not quotes

• Done.

• The British Museum awarded Doubleday an additional £25 (equivalent to £2,500 in 2016) for his labours: "for his labours" sounds a bit dated, maybe just "for his work"

• Done.

• onetime keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the museum - "former"

• Done.

• forever destroying the inscriptions - do we need "forever"

• Nope, removed.

• Doubleday first attempted to fire the unbaked tablets to make them hard - this could be more scientifically put, with blue links for fired, baked and hard

• Linked fire to Pottery#Firing. Any suggestions for links for baked and hard?

• Doubleday twice served as a witness in criminal matters - for the British Museum

• The first one doesn't appear to have been for the BM—rather, from what I can tell he seems to simply be testifying as an expert.

• ..Why does Early in February, Timolean Vlasto, a fashionable twenty-four-year-old from Vienna whose late father, Count Vlasto, had been a diplomat need 5 refs

• Removed two.

• Charles Newton (later Sir Charles) - don't need later Sir Charles?

• I think it says something about the social status of the people Vlasto was dealing with. Interestingly, both Sir Henry Ellis of the BM, and General Charles Richard Fox from whom Vlasto stole, were permitted to sit on the bench and confer with the judge regarding sentencing. This seems like an unlikely privilege had the victims been considered less respectable.

• Then just Sir Charles Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Vlasto was henceforth given unfettered access - drop henceforth, maybe "unrestricted" rather than "unfettered"

• Removed "henceforth".

• I'm confused by "Upon inspection many more coins could not be found, some of which were recovered when a search warrant for Vlasto's lodgings was obtained on Thursday" - how could coins that could not be found, be recovered

• They couldn't be found in the museum's collection on Monday; on Thursday, some were discovered in Vlasto's lodgings when a search warrant was executed.

Fine, and reworded but dont like this Monday/Thursday business. Too specific and bordering on padding. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• In private life Doubleday was a dealer, and a copyist of coins, medals, and ancient seals - Not sure "private life" is correct here as private life usually indicated personal life. Maybe just "apart from his work for the BM"

• Reworded.

A most enjoyable look at a fascinating area of art history (19c restoration). Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support, Ceoil. I've adopted most of your suggestions; full responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see how the last candidacy alas, did not get through, but unreservedly support the current nom. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber

Looks more polished than last time. Well done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SN54129

I was intending to support this on its previous outing, but my tardiness + archiving stymied the effort. My only potential query was to have been regarding the use of all available sourcing (as part of which, I provided one). This was clearly satisfied then—and, if anything, has only been augmented since—and so I default, without hesitation or guilt, to my original position, which is that whatever occurred before, that was then, this is now, and now Featured Article material stands before us. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: Just FYI, but this candidate has seven supports—and, in fact, has done since 20 October—although the nominations viewer script would have us believe there to be only one  :) an opportunity to further shorten the "Older noms" list presents itself, methinks. ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: Nominations are required to have image and source reviews before we can consider promotion. The nominator made a request on Oct 30 but we're still waiting. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nudge, Serial Number 54129. Laser_brain, though I asked for the reviews out of completeness, we could also rely on the first nomination for source and image reviews. The only new image is of the headstone (my photograph, released under an appropriate license), and the sources are fundamentally the same. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do a Source Review if required. Don't have the experience for an image review. It will also have to wait - probably until the weekend but no more - as I'm already committed to a Source Review for another FAC. KJP1 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair point from UNU that one's already been done; it would be a shame to waste it. ——SerialNumber54129 19:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a formal image review of the grave photo that was added since last review; it is fine, and an additional PD tag for the stone itself isn't needed, since there is freedom of panorama in the UK. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from JM

When I first encountered the article, I thought it made a very good GA, but was (I now don't mind admitting!) skeptical about it achieving FA status. Its development since then has been very impressive; this is now, in my view, a very well-written and admirably comprehensive article about a figure about which little is known. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 [36].

---

Michelle Williams (actress)

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This article's first nomination had two supports on prose, successful source and image reviews, but did not attract much attention afterward. Hopefully, there are more eyeballs this time around. As directed, I'm pinging the reviewers from the previous nomination: Moisejp, Aoba47, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in terms of images since my last review of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba

• I support this nomination for promotion as all of my concerns were addressed in the first FAC. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead, 1a:

• "Williams. Williams"—perhaps ", and was"?

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this comment. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sry, I used shorthand: Her surname is repeated, divided only by a point. Tony (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Commas are sometimes a personal choice, but: "At 15, she gained emancipation from her parents, and she soon achieved"—it could read more smoothly as: "At 15 she gained emancipation from her parents, and soon achieved".
• It's often a challenge to avoid too much of the subject's name in the lead. I've bolded the possible issues:

  "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). Williams followed this by featuring in low-budget films that were not widely seen, before achieving her breakthrough with the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned Williams her first Oscar nomination." ->

  "... her leading role in the television teen drama series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). This was followed by [appearances in a number of? give number if easy to do, or just leave it as plural "films"? unsure] low-budget, low-profile films, before her breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her an Oscar nomination." Now, I've removed "first", which indicated more Oscar noms were to come. You might think it's important to flag this here. If not, we'll get to it later. Unsure.

Well, it was the first of her four Oscar nominations (and the only one I have highlighted in the lead). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, what about something like: "This was followed by appearances in ?three low-budget, low-profile films; these led to a breakthrough role in the romantic drama Brokeback Mountain (2005), in which her performance as the wife of a gay man earned her the first of four Oscar nominations she would receive."

I've already mentioned the fact that she has four Academy Award nominations in the first paragraph, so we shouldn't repeat that information in the lead. I've changed "Oscar" to "Academy Award" to avoid any confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• "the latter"—look for nicer-sounding alternatives. It's a one-word title, so why not repeat it instead.
• Next section: "a close bond with her father, who taught her fishing and shooting, and encouraged her to form a reading habit". Be aware of each sentence length, and the rhythm, when distributing commas (or not). Bumpiness versus avoidance of amibuity and easier parsing ... needs continual juggling. Fishing and shooting sound like university modules, and habit sounds like opiates. What about: "a close bond with her father, who taught her to fish and shoot, and encouraged her to become a keen reader." (or "encouraged her to read", unsure)

So, I wouldn't dismiss this in terms of cr. 1a, but it does need auditing throughout. I look at random and see things like: "Also that year, Williams played a small part ..."—why not "In the same year Williams played a small part ...". (Again, I balanced the subsequent, unavoidable comma in making that suggestion.) What made me think right here? I don't much like "also". Tony (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent suggestions, Tony1. I'd appreciate any further help in tightening the prose. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well ... I see FAC as sampling, critiquing, encouraging, judging—rather than a full copy-editing service. Any fellow editors you might ask? And try printing it out and marking it up with a pen. Tony (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1 I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I wasn't asking for a "copy-editing service". I've written the article to the best of my abilities, having learnt tremendously from my past FACs on some of Williams' contemporaries. So if you or other kind reviewers could highlight problems, if any, in the prose that would prevent it from meeting our FA criteria ("critiquing" and "judging", as you perfectly put it), then that would be an ideal use of the FAC process. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment in the references, the point of the retrieval dates is so that readers can look up the webpage on archive.org when the link goes dead. Since you already include archive links in the cites, the retrieved-on dates serve no purpose and can be removed. Further they make the refs look extremely bulky and inelegant, as they now each have three (!) dates in them.—indopug (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Indopug ok, I have removed them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Moise

My support on prose from the previous nomination stands. Reading through the article again now, one minor point I noticed is about “On set, she and Gosling practiced method acting by largely avoiding the script and improvising several scenes.” If they were “largely avoiding” the script, that sounds like they improvised most of the movie, but then it says they only improvised “several scenes”. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp, I've removed the “largely avoiding” the script" bit to avoid confusion. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the next couple of days when I have time, I'll revisit my source review from the last nomination. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

For the first nomination, I did a lengthy source review including spot-checking about 50 sources. Looking at the edit history now, there are no changes that reduce my confidence in the sources. I was going to mention the points that Ealdgyth brought up here [[37]], but I see they have already been dealt with. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Moisejp. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Bilorv

• "To comply with their guidelines, she completed her high school education" – Her parents' guidelines, or legal emancipation requirements?
• "After learning to trade under her father's guidance" – This sounds like it was happening at the time but the source indicates that Williams learned to trade while she was being homeschooled years prior. I suggest "Having learned to trade from her father" as a replacement.
• "slasher film Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" – Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, either rephrasing or de-linking slasher film might be necessary.
• "a parody about the Watergate scandal" – This sounds unnatural to me. Perhaps "a parody of the Watergate scandal" is better.
• Would it be worth mentioning a bit more context to Dick? For instance, its WP page indicates to me that it received positive critical reception despite failing to be a financial success.
• "a part that came closest to her personality" – Closer than what? Would "came close" suffice?
• No reception to Williams' part specifically in The Station Agent is mentioned – did any critics single her out for praise or criticism?
• For Land of Plenty, what character does Williams play and (as above) did any critics mention her specifically in reviews?
• A Hole in One seems skimmed over, but Williams looks to have been in the main role from the WP page. Is there anything to say about the film's success (or lack thereof), or reception to Williams' performance?
• Similar to above, is there anything more to say about The Hawk Is Dying?

Right, so in response to these comments, I'd like to say that it's quite common, in most FAs, to not detail all of the actor/actress's roles, especially the ones that haven't received much attention. As for these three films in particular, I haven't come across any unique or interesting factoids to warrant inclusion. Having said that, I have included a line about the commercial failure of Dick. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense. I highlighted these three films as it seemed Williams played a major part, but if there's not been much focus on them in reliable sources then the current level of detail is appropriate. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• "which centers on a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog and looking for employment" – This is Williams' character, right? This is a little bit ambiguous.
• I found a source saying that Williams first saw a script for Blue Valentine when she was 21. This article begins at the point where she has had a daughter, so there are some gaps that need to be filled in here.

Yes, there's a ton of material there. The project, as with many other independent films, stayed in development hell for many years before getting made. I've highlighted the major aspects of the film's production, but I believe that in order to prevent Williams' biography from being excessively bloated, a lot of the additional information would be better suited in the film's article. What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand this, but I think it would be good to have just a sentence at the start to let the reader know that Blue Valentine had been conceived of several years before, or that Williams had seen a script several years prior. If something else needs to be cut to make room for this, I think this is excessive detail for the pre-production stage, and the second sentence could be cut or shortened: "Before production began, Cianfrance had Williams and Gosling live together for a month on a stipend that matched their character's income. This exercise led to conflicts between them, which proved conducive for filming their character's deteriorating marriage." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv, you're right. I've added a sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• "tells the story of a free-spirited cabaret performer" – Is this the character that Williams played?
• "wish to use her celebrity" – Should this not be "wish to use her celebrity status"?
• "opened up about her relationship with Phil Elverum" – What exactly about her relationship did she talk about?

An excellent article overall; in particular, the prose flows really well, turning it into much more than just a chronological list of acting credits. I'll be happy to support once the points above have been fixed or addressed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and for your excellent suggestions, Bilorv. I hope my explanations to some of them make sense. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, and there's just one point above left to be resolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support: all my comments have been addressed and I believe the article meets the FA criteria. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 [38].

---

Project E

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the US supplying nuclear weapons to the UK forces during the Cold War. It was the first of a series of nuclear sharing agreements; subsequently weapons were supplied on similar terms to Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. The article faced deletion as a hoax back in 2008, but was saved, and is now presented at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead 1a:

• "prior to Britain's own nuclear weapons becoming available"—it's slightly clunky; but you may have reasons for not liking this suggestion: "before Britain independently developed its own nuclear weapons". Any problem in using "United Kingdom" and "Britain" in the same sentence? I could cope with the repetition of "Britain" to avoid processing the switch. Later, I see "United Kingdom" again, which after first usage I'd prefer to be abbreviated too ("UK")—if you decide to keep switching.

  Re-worked the lead slightly to get around this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The United States was approached"—passive ... so who did the approaching? Canada, on Britain's behalf? Full sentence: " The United States was approached to supply weapons for the strategic bombers of the V-bomber fleet until sufficient British ones became available. An agreement was reached in 1957." I wonder whether the medium-sized and stubby sentences could be unscrambled and merged to solve some problems (including the ungainly "ones").

  Mentioned the PM and President to escape from using the passive. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Under Project E, US personnel had custody of the weapons, and performed all the tasks related to their storage, maintenance and readiness. "US" here, so why not also on first appearance after you spell it out at the top? Commas: my preference is for serial commas in inline lists, but fine if it's not your cuppa. But could you dump the comma after "weapons", for flow? Can it be "all tasks"?

  Deleted "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Secure Storage Areas (SSAs)"—why capped in expanded form? Just because some source does it is not reason for modern publications to do it. Styleguides in the US and the UK say to minimise unnecessary capping. So does our MOS. Why Nuclear in the infobox?

  De-capped per WP:EXPABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "were also used on the sixty Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles which were operated by the RAF from 1959 to 1963 under Project Emily." First, without a comma before, "that" is preferred over "which", unless you're David Attenbrough. Second, I can cope with the first passive voice, but why a second? You don't even need that/which: "... Missiles the RAF operated from ...".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Check you need both "also"s in the last para. Maaaybe.

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "A maritime version of Project E known as Project N provided nuclear depth bombs used by the RAF Coastal Command." MOS discourages bolding like that. Can't it be italicised? And here's another passive. Is this possible? "provided nuclear depth bombs for the RAF Coastal Command". Unless you're going to tell us later that they did use them to bomb ... whom ... the Irish?

  MOS:BOLDTITLE: the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Checklist for auditing throughout: unnecessary commas in a few places; unnecessary passive constructions. Country abbreviations for simpler reading?

Nominator is a prominent, much-admired editor of MilHist articles ... that's my opinion, too. So I'm rudely suggesting we clean up a bit. :-) Tony (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye, as usual some gnomish suggestions...

• in infobox image caption, my browser throws the E onto its own new line - need nbsp?

  Doesn't look anything like that on my screen, but added an nbsp for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Winston Churchill, approached approached the - remove dupe

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement - should be Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire?

  Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• which it considered to be a joint discovery - ambiguous, replace 'it' with 'Britain'?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• On 16 November 1945, Truman and Attlee signed - introduce and wlink Truman and Attlee?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• proposed limiting the British program - programme per elsewhere?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• the 2 February 1950 arrest - detained January, charged Feb? (I can't tell from his article)

  No, he was arrested on 2 February 1950. Yes, I realise that was after he confessed to espionage in January. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times - should have their 'the's included?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agreement on the provision on American bombs - of?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Charles E. Wilson - wlink to Charles Erwin Wilson?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The crews practiced the - practised? (if Brit spelling)

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Air Ministry - wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Quick Reaction Alert - wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• RAE Farnborough - refine wlink pipe to Farnborough Airport, or 2 separate ie one to RAE

  Looks like it is going to the right place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• sputnik crisis - cap S?

  Only if we are going to capitalise the C. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues, and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. - commas/and right here?

  Removed the second comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Air Council decided - wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• in the development Red Beard bomb - development of?, 'the' Red (or bombs plural)

  Added "of" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• for providing nuclear weapons the British Army of the Rhine - missing 'to' after weapons?

  Added "to". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• targets of opportunity - wlink

  There's an article on that? Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• 2 x References sections - 1st should be Notes?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Cathcart, Brian - authorlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy to now support, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Just a placeholder for now, will try to get to this by the w/e. Cheers, 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, recusing from coord duties to review... I think Hawkeye could write these nuclear-themed articles in his sleep but they never cease to bring forth interesting technical, military, and political facts. Copyedited as I usually do, so let me know any issues; some outstanding points:

• The offer was rejected by the British on the grounds that it was not "compatible with our status as a first class power to depend on others for weapons of this supreme importance". -- Sounds like it was a government release or representative speaking but can we clarify/attribute?

  Baylis doesn't say, but his footnote points me back to Gowing, who makes it clear that it was the British Chiefs of Staff considering the idea, and the quote comes from their written response. Changed to "by the British Chiefs of Staff", and switched the footnote to point to Gowing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• This eventuality was foreseen. -- I don't think this sentence works as it stands, perhaps something like The shortage of British atomic bombs was foreseen? Of course it's still passive, can we be specific about who foresaw it (even if it's just "the British" or "the Americans" or both)?

  I've re-worked this bit: Once V-bomber production ramped up, their numbers soon exceeded that of the available atomic bombs. Production of atomic bombs was slow, and Britain had only ten on hand in 1955, and fourteen in 1956. At this rate, there would not be sufficient bombs to equip all the V-bombers until 1961. The planned number of V-bombers was a bit of a moving target due to regular budget cuts, dropping from 240 to 144. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, thanked the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, for the generous offer. -- Not sure this sentence adds anything, the implication of the previous sentence is that the offer would be turned down so the thanking part seems like fluff unless we can add that Dickson formally rejected (or accepted) the offer when he saw Twining -- or were things still up in the air (pun unintended) at this stage?

  Changed to: In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, informed the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, that the RAF was declining the offer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Americans then wanted to know how many bombs would be required. The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force would reach a strength of 240 aircraft during 1958. -- Um, is that it? The Americans want to know how many bombs but all we know are how many aircraft? Or is the implication that each aircraft could only carry one bomb?

  Added: Each would carry one atomic bomb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• it turned out that the doors only opened between 50.50 and 51.19 inches (1,283 and 1,300 mm), depending on the aircraft, which meant that the bombs would have to be individually matched with aircraft. After some thought, 0.5 inches (13 mm) was cut off each bomb fin. -- I love the way you've expressed this, it sounds like something out of Yes Prime Minister, when they talk about the nuclear warheads not fitting onto the missiles properly...

  You're the first person to notice, but the whole article was originally written in Sir Humphrey Appleby's voice, with bits like: Moreover, during test firings in the Outer Hebrides, although eight out of twelve missiles accurately hit their targets, four fell short, which is always bad but particularly so when nuclear weapons are involved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• the operational restrictions imposed by Project E "effectively handed the US government a veto over the use of half of Britain's nuclear deterrent" -- can we attribute the quote inline?

  It was Bronk, so I have rewritten the paragraph. It now reads: The Treasury immediately inquired as to whether this meant that the British megaton bomb programme could be terminated. Project E was intended to be a stopgap measure, and while the RAF was impressed with the superior yield of US thermonuclear weapons, its Director of Plans noted that "by retaining Project E at its present strength the US may continue to underestimate the UK independent capability, so that the weight given to HM Government's influence on vital issues would be less than it might otherwise be." Both Sandys and the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Dermot Boyle argued that the UK needed the capacity to initiate a nuclear war unilaterally, but this was not possible if US permission was required for half of the force. With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Project E was used more widely to refer to similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine -- As the opening sentence of a new subsection, this needs context... "More widely" than what? "Similar" to what? "Project E" the term or the project?

  Yes. Changed to: Project E was expanded to encompass similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR)

  All those changes look good to me, tks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A nice read overall, straightforward and succinct. No particular concerns re. structure or comprehensiveness. I'll hold off support until the above points are addressed, and source and image reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Support pending source and image reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Mark_28_Thermonuclear_Bomb.jpg: is an updated source link available?

  Updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• I take that http://nuclear-weapons.info/Working_Paper_No_1.pdf is a reliable source?

  The Mountbatten Centre for International Studies is a reliable source. The paper is written by Richard Moore, an expert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/ a reliable source?

  Let me see if I can replace with Stoddart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• I take that https://fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm is a reliable source?

  The Federation of American Scientists is a reliable source. The paper was commissioned by Greenpeace. I've switched the reference to a book I have here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is something odd about ISBN 978-1-78155-481-4, Google Books has a different author than Wikipedia?

  Are we looking at the same book? [39] John Boyes is the author. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing else that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, seems like it's all fine then in terms of source quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - We're rapidly approaching the two-month mark without sufficient support for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list, but this will have to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more commentary/declaration. --Laser brain (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nigel Ish

A few comments;

• In the Tactical bombers section, it may be worth clarifying that the Valiants were made available for Tactical use because the Vulcans and Victors replaced them in the strategic role. Currently this is implied, but it might be expressed clearer.

  Added: "and replaced the Valiants in the strategic role" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty certain that at least the RAF Germany Canberras swapped their Mark 7s for later US weapons before they were retired - The Canberra article mentions replacement with B43 - unfortunately I no longer have access to the Air International articles I used to write that bit of the Canberra article.

  The article already says: "Each of the 24 Valiants was equipped with two of the more powerful Project E Mark 28 nuclear bombs .These were replaced by the newer Mark 43 nuclear bombs in early 1963." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning that the availability of US tactical weapons for NATO duties released UK weapons for non-NATO duties where the American weapons couldn't be used - British nuclear bombs armed Canberras in the Near and Far East, for example.

  Added: "The availability of US bombs meant that more British bombs were available for use elsewhere. A permanent storage site for 32 Red Beards was opened at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus in November 1961,[39] and one for 48 Red Beards at RAF Tengah in Singapore." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• It isn't clear precisely what the limits of Project E were - did it cover the availability of US tactical weapons for the RAF's Buccaneers or Tornados after the Canberra was retired?

  No, the Buccaneers and Tornadoes carried the WE.177. Added: "The Canberras continued in service, with their B43 Project E bombs until the last was retired in June 1972.[7] They were replaced by Phantom FGR.2s, which carried Project E B43 and B57 nuclear bombs between June 1972 and October 1976, when they in turn were replaced in the tactical nuclear role by the Jaguar GR.1, which carried British WE.177 bombs." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• What happened to the Corporals? It isn't entirely clear whether they were directly replaced by other missiles or just phased out without replacement.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Added a bit about their being withdrawn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• The article currently suggests that of the V-bombers, only the Valiant and Vulcan were modified or allocated US bombs - what about Victors? There is a 2003 article in Air Enthusiast magazine (Lietch, Andy (September–October 2003). "V Force Nuclear Arsenal: Weapons For The Valiant, Victor and Vulcan". Air Enthusiast. No. 107. pp. 52–59. ISSN 0143-5450.) which suggests that the Victors were at least modified to a common standard with the Vulcans so that they could handle Mk 5, Ref Beard or Yellow Sun. In addition, it notes that in the early years of Project E there were more bombs at Waddington (with only 1 front line Vulcan squadron) than aircraft, so that in a crisis, aircraft would have to be flown into Waddington to be bombed up.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Added: "The Victors were also modified to carry US weapons" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Support: I think all my comments have been met.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2018 [40].

---

Green Park tube station

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Green Park tube station is one of the most interesting stations on the London Underground system having gone through three stages of development which I think is well covered in the article. DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SN 54129

Nice article! Just a few points that jump out, nothing major of course.

Glad you like it. Responses below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Rival schemes

• "although it was re-presented in 1903, it was dropped in 1905": How about "although re-presented in 1903, it was dropped two years later"?
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps "Due to failures in the application process, this scheme was also rejected", purely on account of the sheer number of schemes which you have listed as being individually rejected by then?
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Construction etc

• I see you use whilst twice and while once; any particular reason for the choice? I'm not a particularly pro- or anti-ster, but I suppose I'd prefer consistency. Or maybe it makes a change?
  • Drive-by comment (more considered comments from me will follow on the whole article shortly): "whilst" seems just a bit quaint to me, but Fowler only says that it is "less commonly" used than "while". The Guardian style guide says "while not whilst" but doesn't say why. In short, a matter of taste, I think. I don't know that I have a view on whether one should stick to one or other form rather than mix and match. More anon. Tim riley talk 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I normally use whilst and amongst rather than while and among, so not sure while is here. When would be better, but, anyway, I've changed the wording to address one of the other comments below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Can "accent band", as a technical term, be linked to anything for clarity?
  • it just means the edges of the panels of tiling being in a different colour to the rest. I have changed it to margins.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction

• Did anything "happen" relating to the station between its opening and the 1930s? (Except the attempts at crowd control!).
  • Nothing exceptional. After the flurry of construction in the 1900s, the UERL was financially exhausted. There wasn't much going on in the central area during this period. Most of the new initiatives on the Underground were extensions: Northern line to Edgware and Morden, Central line to Ealing Broadway, Bakerloo line to Watford Junction, Metropolitan Railway to Watford and Stanmore. There were some new trains (the London Underground Standard Stock was introduced on the Northern line in 1923 and the Piccadilly line in 1929), but nothing important happened at Green Park as far as I can see.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "The new ticket hall was accessed from subway entrances in Devonshire House on the north side of Piccadilly on the corner with Stratton Street and a southern entrance on a piece of land taken from the park"—can this be broken up slightly? Preferably, I think into two sentences, but if not, at least some punctuation—perhaps a semi-colon somewhere?
  • Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "below ground passages"—"below-ground passages".
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• More out of curiosity, again, but why "teahouse or tea shop", rather than just one or the other? They do link, after all, to the same thing, which does rather suggest synonymity :)
  • Amended. That was another user's edit of a link. Possibly they weren't sure which of the options was relevant.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Vctoria Line

• I notice, again, that you refer to the system itself as the underground rather than the tube; in fact, the only time the latter is used is in the title and the references. Perhaps it's a question of consistency again, but I think that, by the post-war period at least, you can probably start referring to it in the colloquial occasionally.
  • The naming convention for articles on London Underground stations is AAA tube station to differentiate it from a BBB railway station or a CCC DLR station. "Tube" was used almost from the beginning of the deep level lines. The Central London Railway (opened 1900) was the "Tuppeny Tube" in its early advertising and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, Baker Street and Waterloo Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway were the "Piccadilly Tube", "Bakerloo Tube" and the "Hampstead Tube" from opening. I generally don't use "tube" in sentences except for quotes or where it was used as the name.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "variety of new routes and extensions of existing lines" > suggest either "the extension of existing lines" or "extensions to existing lines".
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "A collapse...stabilised to enable work to continue"; can this be rephrased? Perhaps, In 1965 one of the tunnels collapsed during excavation, and it was necessary to chemically stabilise the earth to continue", or something?
  • Reworded. It wasn't so much the tunnel that collapsed as the ground through which it was being bored.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Which leads on to the next sentence: remove repetition of the year, and use "the following year"?
  • Done
• Is it possible to get a picture of Unger's Victoria Line tiling, and perhaps replace the image of 5-7 Dover St, which, frankly, is a little disconnected (although a picture of the original would be great!)
  • The reinstated versions of Unger's tiles can be seen in the first image in the Recent changes section in the recess of the seat. The penultimate image in the London Transport Museum set in External links shows the originals (which have a pale yellow-green background rather than the white background of the replacements - that might be a colour defect in the image or TfL may have decided that a white background went better with the new white wall tiles). There's another image in Commons that shows the tiles face-on which I have added a link to in the image caption.
  • The first of the London Transport Museum images shows the original building.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "when the third stage of the line opened" > "with the opening of the third stage of the line"?
  • Done.
• "The official opening by the Queen" > "The same day, the Queen carried out the official opening at GP".
  • Reworded, slightly differently.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Jubilee

• "The Fleet Line": perhaps something like, "What was then called the Fleet Line", or something, so as to prepare the reader for the later name change—particularly as, with the sub-heading being used, they will be expected that rather than this! Maybe condense the footnote into the text for this?
  • Ok, done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Baker Street to Charing Cross via Bond Street and Green Park": how about just "Baker Street to Charing Cross", as it's quite a complex sentence otherwise. Although it's worth asking at this point whether we can use any of those old maps at all that show various lines in different stages of completion? I think I've got a couple myself, but are they still ©?
  • Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • TfL is very assertive about copyright of its images. Arguably, the stuff produced when the organisation was government owned as the London Transport Executive or the London Transport Board (up to 1970) should be subject to Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. Post-1970 when it became London Transport Executive under the GLC, standard copyright probably applies instead, though we haven't got to the point of testimg that yet.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• The first couple of lines of the second para may want to be reworded? On the one hand, you say tunnelling finished in 1974, but on the other, construction was still going on in 1977? Do you mean of the stations, the fitting out, etc? If so, could this be clarified as it might be slightly confusing to the general reader who knows nothing of the planning of tube tunnels.
  • Yes construction of the stations. The tunnelling is often finished long before the line opens due to the time needed for the track and signalling to be installed and all of the works in the stations, just as we are seeing on Crossrail.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "was used for a substation" > "was used as a substation"? Although I'm uncertain myself.
  • The substation occupies space in the shaft, so I think "for" is more accurate. I've clarified its an electrical substation in case a reader thought it was a minor railway station.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "deep red with leaf pattern"; can we say what colour the leaves were in, for the contrast? Off the top of my head I can't remember, but from the image you use it might be black. True?
  • They are black, yes. Mentioned.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "in August 1978 and the Jubilee line opened on 1 May next year".
  • Done--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Fleet line's stages 2 and 3": Suggest clarifying (perhaps earlier on, when discussing the proposed routes, on the assumption that that's what we're talking about here) precisely what these stages were (a footnote might do it). Also maybe refer to as the Jubilee, since that's what it was by now.
  • It was still the Fleet line when the approval was given. I've amended the existing note to give more information on the routings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Repetition of "passageway".
  • reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• "The new extension opened in stages starting in the east": This needs clarification; I assume you mean Stratford, which should be named and linked. Also, in this para, you should link somewhere to Jubilee Line Extension.
  • Good idea. Stratford mentioned and a link to the JLE is added.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Having said that—that whole last para is entirely about the line itself, not Green Park station specifically; although since GP was the junction between old and new, perhaps it's OK. I certainly don't insist on it either way.
  • I think most of this is necessary context to explain why the tunnels to Charing Cross were abandoned after only 20 years. It does discuss the improvements at Green Park as well.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

• Re. "the Hans Unger tiling in the seat recesses of the Victoria line platforms was replaced ": I seem to remember that there was a big (probably Evening standard-led) brouha over this at the time. Now that's completely my own theory, but perhaps see if you can find something out about it? It would add a little human interest. In any case, the final sentence re, the Unger restoration, currently needs a reference.
  • I've not been able to find anything regarding a brouhaha about the tiling, nor is there a citable source that specifically mentions their reinstatement. The photographs that we have of the station though show that they were reinstated as part of the late 2000s works:
    • this and this show the platforms with the original wall tiling in April 2007 and June 2008.
    • this shows the June Fraser replacement tiles in April 2007
    • this and this show the platforms in July and September 2008 with the wall tiling removed during the refurbishment and the walls rendered in preparation of new work.
    • this shows the wall tiling replaced, but not the recess tiling in 2009
    • this shows the completed work with the reinstated Unger pattern in 2015 - we know from ref 51 that this work was completed by 2011.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• "The new ramped entrance from the park and the street level shelter "; I wonder if it's worth amalgamating this with the earlier sentence
  • I've reworded this to mention the ramp on first mention of the new park entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• "...with access directly from Green Park". "Which consisted of a new ramped entrance", etc. As it stands, you open a parage referring to a specific ramped entrance which hasn't actually been mentioned before, except perhaps by implication.
  • See above.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• I don't really see a necessity in naming the architects; but then, perhaps I do too much anti-spam work around here  :)
  • It's not vital to name check them. I suppose. They are mentioned in the sources so are not anonymous if someone is interested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Repetition of "cool"; perhaps "To help regulate the temperature, a system..."? (Annoyingly, our article on Temperature regulation, which would be a nice link, is basically about body heat!)
  • I've change the first "cool" to "moderate temperatures in"--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Again...Ove Arup and Partners?! But I'll go by whatever the general feeling is.
  • Removed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal...

• Ah-ha! A mention of the Fleet Line stage one—again! All the more reason to discuss these stages earlier?
  • Now mentioned earlier.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Reference required for "No further work has been done...".
  • It's not possible to prove that nothing further has been done, but the sentence can be removed without changing the preceding.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Bombing

• Now, this is purely my opinion, but I wonder whether this really requires its own section? As it's only one sentence, I imagine it could neatly into the prose, chronologically? But again, I'll go with the general view on this.
  • I don't think it fits in as part of the previous sections which all relate to developments to the stations. The bomb does not appear to have damaged the station, so there was no reconstruction required.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• "On 9 October 1975, terrorists belonging to the..."—suggest, per WP:WORDSTOWATCH, "On 9 October 1975, the Provisional IRA...". Or perhaps, "On 9 October 1975, members of the Provisional IRA's Balcombe Street Gang..." which has its own article, and that lot are probably well-known enough to warrant a link.
  • The bombing is included in List of terrorist incidents in London. Nevertheless, I've used your second wording.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

IPC

• Just curiosity, but is this the only thing it's been used in? I don't want to turn this section into a fancruft fest, but I thought it would be a backdrop in classic B&W films. Shame if not, an, as long as they're sensible additions, this is more human interest I suppose. Still, can't make it up, can we... 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It does not seem to have had the glamorous life of Aldwych tube station, which has featured repeatedly as itself and, in disguise, as other stations. There may be some random street shots with the station in the passing background, but that does not really count for this sort of section. Certainly, fancruft is to be avoided and by providing a good source for this one instance that should stop the random unsourced crap that appears otherwise.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope this is of some use at least, DavidCane. Best of luck with it!

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• • • Thanks; it was all very helpful.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Just checking, SN, and no pressure to declare a position, but have you completed your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke, Ian Rose, this had slipped my mind. My review was more thorough than I intended, actually, and everything has been attended too nicely (including such anomalies as WP:WTW, etc.). Have now indicated my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

• Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article for GA and thought then it was of FA quality. Revisiting it, I remain of that opinion. Comprehensive, v. readable, logically laid out, well and widely referenced. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim.--DavidCane (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Prose looks good. Pity it fragments into higher-level sections at the bottom. Two of them are one sentence long. Tony (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Construction and opening

• "Whilst the various rival schemes were unsuccessful in obtaining parliamentary approval, the B&PCR was similarly unsuccessful in raising the funds needed to construct its line."

—"While" is more modern. What was similar about their lack of success?

• • Changed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• "As with most of the other GNP&BR stations, the station building, located on the east side of Dover Street, was designed by Leslie Green."
  • Removed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• "at first floor level"—hyphen, please.
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement with margins, patterning and the station names in mid-blue." Add a comma and remove a "the".
  • "the" removed, but I don't see anywhere that a comma is needed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• "The station was provided with four Otis electric lifts paired in two 23-foot (7.0 m) diameter shafts and a spiral stair in a smaller shaft. The platforms are 27.4 metres (90 ft) below the level of Piccadilly." was ... are. I suppose it's OK, but the reader does have to make a slight shift. Do we need commas after "lifts" and "shafts"?
  • "Was" because the provision of the lifts is in the past (and they have been removed) and "are" because the platforms were and still are that far below the surface. I don't think commans are needed, it's not a parenthetical statement.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank Tony. --DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Was the standard arrangement one with margins as a party? It's a little unclear whatever the fuzzy meaning. My editor would make me put two more commas in, but the serial comma is your choice: ""Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement, with margins, patterning, and the station names in mid-blue." Tony (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

• Regarding Tony's comment above, the IRA bomb could be more than a sentence (compare and contrast with Blackwall Tunnel#Provisional IRA bombing, for example), and most station articles have an "accidents / incidents" section (paging Mjroots who researches a lot of this stuff). With this information, the single line section could easily be expanded out to a paragraph or two.
• Green Park tube was the meeting point for the People's Vote March this summer, attended by 100,000 people. Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, this would be worth at least a sentence in order to meet criteria 1b.

More later.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

...and has got its own article @1975 Piccadilly bombing. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A search of the Railways Archive website doesn't reveal any accidents. RAIB website also draws a blank. A {{main}} would be useful in the section on the bombing. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

According to this Times citation, on 24 October 1936 it was reported that a man was fined £2 with £1 1s costs for allowing his dog to walk on one of Green Park's escalators. Shame this isn't DYK, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw the piece about the poor dog that got his leg mangled in the escalator, but didn't think it key to put it in. There were also a couple of people reported (separately) to have fallen under trains, but that's, unfortunately, not particularly uncommon. The only other thing that I found but didn't put in was a fire in one of the tunnel construction sites which meant that workman needed to evacuate the workings temporarily.

I've added a {{main}} tag.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, been a couple of weeks since you began reviewing, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• I take that http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=TTDA&userGroupName=kccl&tabID=T003&docPage=article&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&docId=CS85283883&type=multipage&contentSet=LTO&version=1.0 is a reliable source? And I got distracted by Gale (crater) while checking.
• https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/07/12/3d-maps-of-every-underground-station-cdefg/ does not obviously look like a reliable source to me.
• http://content.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/operational-and-financial-performance-investment-programme-reports-appendix3.pdf is a broken link.
• I take that https://acanthuslw.com/landscape/green-park-station/ is a reliable source?
• No objection to http://www.peterberthoud.co.uk/blog/01042018102201-londons-most-beautiful-shelter-/ as it looks like a reliable source given some discussion I am seeing of Mr. Berthoud.
• I take that http://londonist.com/2011/05/tfl-moots-new-dlr-routes-including-victoria-and-st-pancras is a reliable source?
• Is http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/subterra/lu/lufilmtv/wotdove.htm a reliable source?
• Is http://developments.dlr.co.uk/ a reliable source?
• Is Christian Wolmar a reliable source? I've seen some critical comments by Iridescent although in the context of railway privatization.

No spotchecks done. Regarding Capital Transport I take that the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baker Street and Waterloo Railway/archive1 precedent applies as are relative comments also on User talk:Iridescent and archive history i.e that it's a good publisher for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My comments are below:--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Running through the points one by one (My Personal Opinion, not gospel):

• [41] is a deep-link to Kent Libraries, will only function for someone who's a member of Kent Libraries, and shouldn't be linked—The Times has its own citation template for a reason. (The article in question—in full—reads An additional escalator is to be installed at Green Park tube station, Piccadilly Line, to deal with the heavy increase in peak-hour traffic. Work is starting immediately and it is hoped that the new escalator will be in use by the end of Auguse. Passengers at Green Park total nearly 10 million a year, an increase of almost 50 per cent, over pre-war, attributed largely to Mayfair business development..)
  • Fixed. Didn't realise that the url provided as the citation at the bottom of the article was tied to my specific library log-in. You would think that such a url would be neutral, so that any reader with access could get to it.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• The IanVisits isn't something I'd normally consider a RS, but since in this case it's only the republished TfL maps he's hosting I wouldn't consider it an issue (I assume nobody is actually going to challenge where the platforms at Green Park are located since anyone visiting can see the things for themselves, so "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't come in to play and the sourcing rules are laxer than usual.
  • As Iridescent notes, it's a blog, so not used for anything other than the link to the page with the station layout plan. The source provided at the bottom of the Ian Visits page links to a Freedom of Information Request (here), confirming the map's origin and authenticity.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• The Acanthus link is reliable provided it's only being used (as it is) to state what Acanthus was commissioned to do, and isn't used to say "they did a great job" etc.
  • As Iridescent notes, the Acanthus source is used as a reference for the description of the works only.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I personally wouldn't include Peter Berthoud, but it's not something worth opposing over.
  • Included just to provide a link to some more pictures of the fountain. But it isn't necessary to retain it for any other purpose.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• IMO I wouldn't trust the Londonist reference; this is a crappy free advertising sheet handed out at London stations, citing a blog, which in turn is citing a purported page on the DLR (not the TfL as claimed) website that doesn't appear to exist.
  • see below. I'm happy to link direct to the archived DLR pdf, but this does not have any context.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Nick Cooper's blog is questionable at best as a source, but what's being sourced to it is so inconsequential I wouldn't worry about it.
  • The whole section is included as it's the sort of trivia that otherwise gets dumped in by random passersby. The Cooper ref does have the benefit of images (top right shows the Dover Street name in the tiling of the platform set).--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• developments.dlr.co.uk looks dodgy to me; it doesn't exist even in Google's cache, and the actual website of the DLR is tfl.gov.uk/modes/dlr
  • The dlr.co.uk domain ultimately referenced belonged to Docklands Light Railway Limited before it was merged into the TfL website. Oddly, the last time that the internet archive has a direct link to http://www/dlr.co.uk without it going to a redirect to the TfL website is on 26 July 2002 (here). After that, the various archived crawls follow redirects to the TfL site. TfL kept dlr.co.uk going as a landing page for its redirect until 2016 it seems, though the developments.dlr.co.uk was alive in 2011. Here's a link to developments.dlr.co.uk from 3 May 2011 which looks much like the standard TfL website did at the time. At the bottom right there is a link to a section titled "Where We Go Next" which appears to be the section in which the PDF map would have been linked (the archived url of the PDF includes the url of that section), though the internet archive has not crawled that section.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to replace the reference with one whose identity is clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I have removed the Londonist ref and rephrased the sentence to make reference to the proposal having been published by DLR in 2011. I have changed the internet archive link to use the earliest version from May 2011 to reflect this publication date.--DavidCane (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Christian Wolmar is a reliable source on uncontroversial history; he's a paid-up Labour Party activist (and former Labour candidate for Mayor of London) so biased when it comes to privatisation and management, but that's not an issue here.
  • I've used his book quite a lot on various of my other FAs, but only in the historical context. He was actually only a candidate to be the Labour candidate for mayor - he came quite low in the internal selection vote, but I wouldn't be using him for anything policy related.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Within their specialist niche, Capital Transport is the most reliable source around, to the extent that the London Transport Museum has largely given up publishing and stocks their books instead. For something like the history of a tube station, you can assume that if every other source disagrees with them, it's the CT book that's the RS and every other source that's wrong. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Horne Jubilee line books says on its flyleaf "published in association with the Jubilee line, London Underground Ltd" and the Victoria line book says "published in association with the London Transport Museum". The others in the series have variations on these words, so it's safe to assume that they were approved.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, after a note on WT:FAC it looks like this article has some unsourced sentences and paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Other than your item in the Source Review section, I can't see anything on WT:FAC that mentions this FAC or the article.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That was Nikkimaria's "the tube station article there appear to be some unsourced statements (one is a summary of later paragraphs but two more don't seem to be". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A minor style question, but the Acanthus reference should probably be formatted in the same way as the others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like we are all set now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@DavidCane: Where are we with addressing these items? --Laser brain (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging and thanks Iridescent for your assistive comments above. I'd missed this in my watchlist.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, anyone have an idea of why the summary shown on the main page shows that this has no supports so far, when it has two (SN 54129 and Tim Riley). I assume that bot is looking for some specific wording/formatting combination, but not finding it.--DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the lack of a bolded "support" in the comment as that is the normal way to format support !votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is this summary of supports? I cannot find it. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It is part of the collapsed single-line entry for this nomination on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Supports are at the end after number of participants. Currently the bot has identified 0 supports whereas there are actually two.--DavidCane (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It does not show up on my computer. Is there a script I have to enable? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: It's this one. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Serial Number 54129. That's a great help. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I see you have put your support in a heading. I think you might need to add it in bold for it to count. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, Dudley Miles, but I think it can be either. Look, here's one I made earlier  :) —WP:Featured article candidates/John/Eleanor Rykener/archive2—there's a few supports, but they are a mixture of being in both body and headings; and the ones in the body are bolded in the wikimarkup, but the ones in the headings are only bolded only by the section header and no actual mark up. So it's a little confusing to say the least. Feel free to look in there if the inclination takes you!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SN, I'd forgotten that it was a script producing that collapsed view.--DavidCane (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "While the various rival schemes were unsuccessful in obtaining parliamentary approval,[15] the B&PCR was also unsuccessful in raising the funds needed to construct its line." I think you should delete "also" - you are contrasting, not adding.
• You say that B&PCR was taken over by Yerkes's company and then that it merged with the Great Northern and Strand. This is unclear. Did Yerkes also own GNS?
  • Yes. Yerkes business arrangements were complicated, often deliberately so, and had sometimes involved dodgy practices. I've added a rather large note to explain the chain of transactions that ended with the B&PCR merging with the GN&SR.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Is it correct that nothing of the station designed by Leslie Green remains? This should be clarified.
  • Done in note c. The Piccadilly line platforms themselves remain, but nothing of their original decoration. The last remnants of Green's tiling scheme were removed in the most recent re-tiling. Due to the introduction of the escalators, the previous below ground passageways that connected the Piccadilly line platforms to the lifts became redundant, but they almost certainly remain but inaccessible to the public. The 3D plan of the station linked from ref 23 does not show them, but the passages to the lifts started from the top of the pair of stairs that are roughly in the centre of the platforms and crossed over the eastbound platform and ran north-west under Dover Street. There is a copy of one of the original plans in the J E Connor book. These stairs themselves would have been redundant until brought back into use for the the interchange passages to the other lines. Above ground, the station building has gone except for the minor remnants discussed below.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• "Although painted-over, remnants of Green's tiling from the left and right sides of the building's facade remain attached to retained sections of the flank walls each side of the current building (see photograph)." Is this the photo of the main entrance at the start of the article?
  • No, that is the 1930s entrance built into Devonshire House. The original building was replaced by the one in this photo, which is the one about half way down the article. The "see photograph" linked to this. I have changed the wording slightly to make it clearer which one.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• A first rate article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 [42].

---

James Wood Bush

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about James Wood Bush a Civil War soldier who saw service in the US Navy and suffered injuries because of it. He was uniquely recognized in later life for his service in the war with a US governmental pension when Hawaii transitioned into a US territory. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, J. R. Kealoha and Prince Romerson. It has been an A-list quality article for a while following the same trajectory of GA than A-class review. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. Copyedit was done recently. I’m gonna ping all the reviewers (non-closers) who have looked at this article or the previous three articles for an opinion. Comment if you have time... KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wb, Kavebear. FWIW, pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit that you ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor, Coemgenus, Wehwalt, Casliber, Maile66, Dank, Dudley Miles, Hchc2009, AustralianRupert, ErrantX, Sainsf, Nick-D, and Maury Markowitz:, thanks for letting me know, did that work? KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It worked, but I've retired from the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:USS_Vandalia_(1828)_sketch.jpg: if the source is Harper's, why is this believed to be a US Navy work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: It was a holdover from the original upload. Changed it. Image was published in 1861.KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: any other concerns?KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any obvious prose issues that need fixing and I suspect it is about as comprehensive as it can be (however I know little of the subject and context). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Support This seems to have been pretty well vetted before it got to FAC. I removed a few extraneous blank spaces that are inherent in infobox templates, but not a factor in any review process. Looks good to me. Nice job. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Most of the article looks really strong to me. I did find a couple of things worth bringing up, though:

• Both in the lead and the body, the phrase "In recent years" pops up in referring to how Bush has received more recognition. This isn't ideal because such wording can became outdated over time. Imagine it's 10 years from now and the wording is still in the article; would it really be accurate then? Not sure if the sources will let you provide a more exact year range as to when the increase in recognition started, but if possible that would avert the risk of the wording becoming outdated. If not, perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the issue.
• Minor point, but the Foenander and Milligan Hawaiians in the Civil War external link can be removed since it already appears in the bibliography. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this will address this weekend.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @KAVEBEAR: Where are we on addressing these comments? Also, was there a source review I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008 and Laser brain: Done. No source review yet. So that needs to be done.KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Support – My couple of small issues have been resolved, and I believe that the article, while relatively short for an FA, does meet the standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Since user:Laser brain seems to be monitoring this and will be the deciding coordinator. Can the other coordinators @Ian Rose and Sarastro1: offer their two cents so this can move along and not go stale? KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Imma comment on some sources. When googling McFarland & Company I saw this Internet forum critical of the publisher. The author though seems reputable. Is Lorenzo Taylor's also a reputable source? The other sources (academic publications and local newspapers) don't look bad to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Lorenzo Taylor was a Mormon editor of Deseret News used as a primary source here for Bush’s obituary information. I don’t know about McFarland & Company but the author (Frank L. Grzyb, author of six previous books, has contributed numerous articles to newspapers and magazines about America's Civil War. He is a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Round Table and lives in Rhode Island.).KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, got it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments -- Recusing coord duties, somewhat unusually I didn't review this at MilHist ACR so have gone through top to bottom, lightly copyediting as I went. As ever with these bios, it's a brief article, but I've supported shorter ones. I'll take Nikki's image review as read but would prefer to see her do the source formatting check if possible, as it looks a bit more complicated than some and I think I'd miss something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Punaboy ref is dead, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

• Why "NC" but "D. C."?

• Grzyb: the ISBN is for the ebook and the OCLC number is for the print - which was consulted? The Kuykendall ISBN and OCLC numbers also don't match

• Jenson source is a periodical but is formatted like a book. Same with Taylor

  Not yet fixed, and why is Taylor after Vance in the list? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: How about now? KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  It looks like the formatting of {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}} doesn't match - these might be better placed with the newspapers, although you'll need to decide whether or not to include publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Changed to cite news.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Looks like one of the Taylor cites is now broken? The Jenson cite should also be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Fixed again.KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include a retrieval date

• State Archives ref needs more capitalization

• NPS shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Addressed all.KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Hawaiian Journal of History" or "Hawaiian Journal of ,History" or "The Hawaiian Journal of History"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Removed publishers.KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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