- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: | Featured content:
Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article review (FAR) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||||||
|
Nominations
Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon
- Nominator(s): You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the debut posthumous studio album by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was executive produced by American rapper 50 Cent after Pop Smoke was murdered at the age of 20 during a home invasion. To the other two FAC coordinators. I have contacted Gog the Mild and they said it was okay to nominate the article a little earlier than the two week period. I would also like to thank Gerda Arendt. If it was not for her I would not be taking this article to FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Check that all images have alt text
- The FUR for File:Shootforthestarsvirgilcover.png is based on the image being in the infobox; it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria I have changed the FUR for the original ugly version of Pop Smoke's album cover and added alt texts to all the images. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 ( talk) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The new FUR is insufficient - that big red "purpose must be stated" should be dealt with, and given the details of the image's creation we probably need to also identify the work from which it derives. Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria how does it look now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 ( talk) 19:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article says the image is based on a pre-existing photo not by the graphic artist, correct? What is the source of that? And what benefit specifically does the reader derive from seeing this image? Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria I have removed the image. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 ( talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article says the image is based on a pre-existing photo not by the graphic artist, correct? What is the source of that? And what benefit specifically does the reader derive from seeing this image? Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria how does it look now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 ( talk) 19:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The new FUR is insufficient - that big red "purpose must be stated" should be dealt with, and given the details of the image's creation we probably need to also identify the work from which it derives. Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria I have changed the FUR for the original ugly version of Pop Smoke's album cover and added alt texts to all the images. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 ( talk) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Support from 100cellsman
Interesting read! Did not see anything worth opposing. 웃OO 04:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments from K. Peake
Resolved comments from K.Peake |
---|
The article mostly looks great, but I do have a few concerns:
|
Support from Gerda
Thank you for praise I hope to live up to. I support the article per my comments in the PR and FAC 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Alicia (album)
- Nominator(s): isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Another album article, as complete as can be... Barring some major blind spot, just might need some tweaks, which the review process oughtta sort out. isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Support from TheAmazingPeanuts
The article look good, you have my support. Wish you luck. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Katie Joplin
- Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a 1999 WB sitcom which starred Park Overall as a host of a phone-in radio program. It was optioned as a potential mid-season replacement for the 1998–1999 television season, but was delayed for a year. The WB had already decided to cancel the series prior to its premiere and seemingly did little to no promotion for it. This show is so obscure that it did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, and I would be surprised if anyone has heard of it before this nomination.
I worked on this article back in 2018, and I was inspired to expand it further for this FAC. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address all the suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
- File:KatieJoplinTitleCard.jpg has an appropriate FUR.
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- While not an absolute requirement, I would recommend adding a photo of at least one cast member (and this doesn't include TV logos)
- I agree. Ideally, I would love to use an image of Park Overall since she is the star of the show, but unfortunately, she does not already have an image in the Wikimedia Commons and I am honestly quite bad at tracking down free-use images. Jay Thomas, Jim Rash, and Majandra Delfino each have images, but neither are from the time period that this series was filmed so I do not want it to be misleading, and the Simon Rex image seems too low-quality for the article. Apologies for the lengthy response. I just wanted to be show my thought process behind this one. Aoba47 (talk)
- Let's trim "has an estranged relationship with her husband" down to "is estranged from her husband"
- Agreed. It is always better to more concise so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Does "secure a better career" mean one that makes more money, something Joplin enjoys more than her prior job, or both?
- According to the Terrace source, it is more about Katie wanting to start over so it more the second reason, but I am sure money also played a factor in it although that is not directly said. I have reworded this part to hopefully make it clear that it is more about her starting over and trying to find a new direction in life. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how pertinent the "more fashionable" bit is (I've never watched the series and hadn't even heard of it before looking at this article)
- I have added a bit more on this. Liz works as a fashion editor and her focus on fashion seems to one of the show's ways of distinguishing her from Katie. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "is a recurring character on the show"..... that sounds like a stretch when Katie Joplin only runs for 5 episodes total, and "recurring" makes it sound like one appears inconsistently in a show that has multiple seasons (or at least one with many more episodes). You should instead discuss Sara's characterization/plot elements.
- That is a fair point. I have removed the "recurring character" bit altogether. Thank you for encouraging me to look further into the characterization/plot elements. I have added a bit about that. Let me know if any further work is needed for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "started production in 1998"..... is a specific day or even month known? If you can find anything on when filming concluded, then I definitely feel that should also be added
- Unfortunately, I cannot find further information on the show's production. It is likely the entire thing was filmed in 1998 and then the WB decided to pass on it and only later aired as a burn-off or some kind of filler. However, that is pure speculation on my part. That being said, I will look around some more just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "cited Katie Joplin in his book"..... listed would read better, and I would make it clearer that the "sitcoms you never saw" is part of the Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw title. Elaborating on any commentary Irvin left would be helpful here.
- I have used your suggestion. When I first wrote the article, I was able to access the Katie Joplin part of the book through the Google Books preview, but unfortunately, my access to that particular book has been greatly limited. I have put in a request here as I agree that it is best for me to re-examine that source to see if I can find anything new. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing a citation for "Overall learned the WB canceled Katie Joplin while promoting the sitcom Ladies Man; she said: 'I think that pretty rude. Honey, they didn't even call me to tell me they were canceling it!' According to Overall, the WB decided to cancel the series months before it aired as they did not believe it could attract a young demographic." Also, shouldn't "that pretty rude" be "that's pretty rude"?
- Yikes! Apologies for that as I am not sure how that happened. You are correct. For some reason, I made a typo. I made a lot of silly mistakes in this part in particular >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
For a short-lived series that many are unaware of, you mostly seem to have covered all the essential aspects. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have address everything. I will let you know when I get further access to Forgotten Laughs: An Episode Guide to 150 TV Sitcoms You Probably Never Saw. If you have any questions about my responses (or any further comments), I would be more than happy to respond to them. If you are interested, here is a clip from the show and you can watch the opening credits here. It seemed like a fairly standard, and rather unremarkable, sitcom for the time period. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- My pleasure, and let me know once that Irvin bit gets expanded. You still haven't given the full title of his book within the prose, though. Perhaps I should've been more explicit in saying that should be included. I see what you mean with the photos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: I have added the book title to the prose. I was able to get a hold of all the pages from the Irvin citation about the series and I have added that information. I am glad that I did as the book had information on the unaired episodes and at least gave the month that production ended as well as a vague reason on why that had occurred. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to say this in the above message, but the only commentary Irvin had about the show was comparing it to Muprhy Brown. Otherwise, he just focused on the facts about the show's episodes and production. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Abberton Reservoir
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
A lot of water, many ducks, some naval mines and the "Dam Busters". Thanks to Gog the Mild for help with the milhist stuff and to aa77zz for help with the rest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for image review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Momčilo Đujić
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Momčilo Đujić is the fourth WWII Chetnik leader I've brought to FAC, and the first one who was also a priest. A member of the interwar Chetnik Association, which largely functioned as a paramilitary arm of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, Đujić escaped the initial onslaught of the Ustaše after the Axis invasion of the country and the establishment of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, but returned during the general uprising to take charge of a large proportion of the Chetniks in the Dalmatian hinterland. He collaborated extensively with the Italians and then the Germans against the communist-led Partisans, and withdrew west alongside the Germans at the end of the war, surrendering to the western Allies. He was able to emigrate to the US, where he lived among the diaspora. He played a bit supporting part during the Yugoslav Wars and died in 1999. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Image review
- Images appear to be freely licensed
- I rescaled and moved around some images for MOS compliance
- Dinara Division section is too long for ideal readability, I would try to put in subsections. (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Buidhe, did a bit of a restructure! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Support from Vacant0
- I gave this a read, and everything seems to look fine, although I noticed
Šešelj later became the leader of the Serbian Radical Party, a government coalition partner of Serbian President Slobodan Milosević
, so Milosević should be changed to Milošević. Besides that, everything looks fine. Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Vacant0! Fixed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
John McGraw
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is about... John McGraw, who not only spent thirty years as manager of the New York Giants baseball team, but before that was one of the legendary Baltimore Orioles of the 1890s, who originated many plays and weren't shy about abusing the umpire to get their way, a characteristic McGraw, despite great success with the Giants, kept through much of his career.
- Image review
- File:John McGraw 1891 Cedar Rapids Canaries.jpg what's the pub date? It's not clear if the scanned document was published or if it was some sort of unpublished document.
- Swapped for an image from 1890, provably pre-1925.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:1896 Baltimore Orioles.jpg How do you know that the first publication was 1956, or is it possible there was an earlier publication?
- I've added evidence of pre-1923 publication, justifying the PD tag.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:1899 Baltimore Orioles.jpg , File:1912 John McGraw by Conlon.jpeg When was the first publication?
- Cut the 1899 photo.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:John McGraw 1924.jpg Why is it PD?
- I've changed the license tag.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
(t · c) buidhe 00:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, please break up the longer sections. "Baltimore years", "Early years (1902–1908)", "Middle years (1909–1920)", "Later years (1921–1931)", "Retirement, death, and posthumous honors" are all way too long especially when browsing on a mobile device. I would also try to break up "Minor leagues" and "Managerial techniques" as too long to comfortably browse on mobile. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've split the ones in the first sentence above. I don't think it's practical to split the other two.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
At 11442 words the article probably needs some cutting. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that. There is a baseball career of over forty years, each year of which needs coverage and can't be lumped together with others.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You could split off sub articles Managerial career of John McGraw and/or Playing career of John McGraw, while retaining just the most important information in this overview. ( t · c) buidhe 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I really think most of this needs to be in the main article. Sub-articles get little traffic. Casey Stengel, another FA about a manager with a similarly long career, is also on the long side.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've cut some.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some articles such as Huey Long were broken up and improved as a result. I think this one also would be improved with a spinoff and application of summary style. ( t · c) buidhe 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would think you need to have some information on each year of his career, and the end product would not be too much shorter than what is there now. Sub-articles get minimal readership. Thanks for your review and comments. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- You could split off sub articles Managerial career of John McGraw and/or Playing career of John McGraw, while retaining just the most important information in this overview. ( t · c) buidhe 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Lights Up
- Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Harry Styles's song, "Lights Up", released as the lead single from his critically acclaimed second studio album, Fine Line (2019). Co-written by Styles after a period of self-reflection, "Lights Up" is about self-acceptance and was praised by critics for its pop and R&B sounds, as well as its unconventional structure. It became Styles's second top-10 hit in the UK following his debut single "Sign of the Times" (2017). The song and its music video, released on the National Coming Out Day, attracted debates about the singer's sexuality. The article went through an extensive peer review over the last few months and I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. I would like to thank HĐ, Panini, The Ultimate Boss, Bruce1ee, Aoba47, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Atsme, HJ Mitchell, HumanxAnthro, and Heartfox for participating in the peer review, and Twofingered Typist and Baffle gab1978 for copy-editing the article. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Full disclosure: I participated in the peer review, but haven't edited the article. Versioned reviewed.
Quality
- In the i-D article, the author appears to source the director/music video filming from a PopCrave tweet... I don't think this meets the "high-quality" sources requirement in WP:WIAFA #1c. Is there another source that lists the director?
- Unfortunately, I cannot find another source that mentions the director. I have used this source for my FL Harry Styles discography.
- What makes Atwood Magazine a high-quality source; auspOp?
- removed Atwood. Replaced the latter.
- E! Online, Insider, and Evening Standard's reliabilities are currently listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSP. I don't have a particularly high opinion of WP:RSP unless there has been an RfC, but do you think there are better sources that can be used instead, or maybe not cite them at all if you don't really think they add anything to the article?
Formatting
- I believe The New York Times is actually url-access=limited, not subscription; they do give you a few free articles.
- revised
- All of the Rolling Stone refs are url-access=limited. I did get a few free articles but then it paywalled everything.
- revised
- fn 12: maybe helpful to specify it is Vanity Fair Italy.
- revised
- fn 15 is Vulture, not New York. Also url-access=limited.
- revised
- The Atlantic url-access=limited.
- revised
- The Cut url-access=limited.
- revised
- fn 36: this is a press release from Sony, as seen at the byline at the bottom. It should be formatted as cite press release (not web), with via=
. I don't know where "Radio Airplay S.R.L." comes from; the bottom of the page says "Airplay Control S.R.L."
- revised
- fn 40: the article title italicizes Saturday Night Live.
- revised
- fn 97: don't link to the page directly, as only people with Newspapers.com subscriptions can view it. Instead, link to the clipping I made here which anyone can see.
- revised
- fn 119: I would argue this does not indicate a UK-wide release, as only one radio station/network is cited. It may be more accurate if used in-text, specifying BBC Radio 1, not "United Kingdom". There are other radio networks in the UK like Capital FM that may not have playlisted it.
- revised
Spotchecks
- Will do shortly. It is currently 3 am ET and I should be going to sleep :) Heartfox (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose by Nick-D
I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards at present and some claims I spot checked weren't supported by the source. Some comments (intended to be illustrative) are:
- "Styles conceived the song's lyrics, which discuss self-acceptance and Styles's embracing of his own identity, after a period of self-reflection." - awkwardly worded and meaningless
- "The song was written by Styles, and producers Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon, and on 11 October 2019, Erskine Records and Columbia Records released it for digital download and streaming as the album's lead single. "" - also clunky
- "Critics have compared the track's production to the music of Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake." - are these the same critics? These artists have quite different styles.
- "the video attracted debates about Styles's sexuality" - clunky
- "To promote the song, Styles performed it on several television programmes, including Saturday Night Live and Later... with Jools Holland." - doesn't need to be in the lead: musicians routinely promote and play their music.
- The first para of the 'Writing and production' section should be in past tense
- "both of whom had collaborated with him on Harry Styles" - awkward
- "Styles described "Lights Up" as "the most unorthodox song" he had ever made" - as this is from only his second album, this seems vacuous. I'd suggest thinning out the references to Styles talking about himself, as they're not very useful.
- "It was written via voice notes with Tyler [Johnson]. He'd send me a track and we'd send voice notes back and forth" - does this contradict the claim that it was written as part of a burst of inspiration?
- "Media publications including Time and Paper noted a melancholic edge to the lyric" - only Time and Paper are then referenced, so the claim that there were other "publications" who "noted" this isn't supported (also, are these the editorial views of the publications, or of their critics?)
- "Music critics lauded Styles for experimenting with pop and R&B sounds, exploring a new musical direction that showed his versatility as an artist." - not in the source, which seems to be the view of a single author.
- I gave up at this point given that the same problems kept coming up. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Edward Mitchell Bannister
- Nominator(s): —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Edward Mitchell Bannister, an African-American abolitionist and painter. He first received national recognition for his art in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, and he was a founder member of the Rhode Island School of Design and Providence Art Club. I have particularly attempted to expand our coverage of Bannister's earlier abolitionist years in Boston and the specifics of his artistic style and subjects.
In support of this nomination, I have solicited other editors' help with GOCE copyediting, a successful GAN, and a recent peer review. This is my first FAC nomination. (@Ceoil: since they offered to look at this earlier.) —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Winged. Wasn't expecting this, seemed to have missed the PR, but you have some formatting issues with closing brackets (ie [[]]) in refs 10, 11, 13 and 30 in i this revision. Also ref 39 is returning a syntax error. All easily sorted, and far from deal breakers. Will read though again shortly, with a full review in a few days. Ceoil ( talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are Done — Wingedserif ( talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil ( talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I welcome them! — Wingedserif ( talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil ( talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are Done — Wingedserif ( talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Edward Mitchell Bannister.jpg and File:'Hay Gatherers' by Edward Mitchell Bannister, c. 1893.jpg When was the first publication?
- For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) — Wingedserif ( talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you say
For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get
, what information is this based on? Is there any documented publication prior to 1926? For the second one, public display does not count as publication under US law. ( t · c) buidhe 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you say
- For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) — Wingedserif ( talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: I did not check licenses for images in the gallery. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Peloneustes
- Nominator(s): --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about perhaps the most completely known short-necked pliosaurid, a group of plesiosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles with four flippers. This is also the first FAC for a Jurassic plesiosaur. Peloneustes has had quite a long history, and a great deal has been said about it in the literature, so I've done my best to cover all important aspects of its history, anatomy, and biology in the article. This is my first time at FAC on my own, though I have been a co-nominator for two other articles. In addition to GAN and PR, this article has also passed through the WP:PALEOPR page. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Peloneustes and Pliosaurus andrewsi Mandibles.png, File:Peloneustes Skeletal Mount from Andrews (1910).png, File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png, File:Peloneustes Crania and Teeth.jpg, File:Peloneustes Middle Cervical Vertebrae.png, File:Peloneustes Pectoral Girdle Andrews.png, File:Peloneustes Pelvic Girdle Andrews.png, File:Simolestes Skull Dorsal View.png, File:Liopleurodon Skull Dorsal View - Extracted.png, File:Peloneustes Paddles.png — claimed to be PD because "author's life plus 70 years or fewer", but no death date given. You can fix that by adding the death date (I assume it's known and actually 70+ years ago) in the image description. (For works before 1901, if you don't know the death year, {{PD-old-assumed}} plus a US PD tag may be used).
- I've added the "deathyear" parameter to all of these, except for File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png. I couldn't find anything online about Jaccard's death date. Adding {{PD-old-assumed}} creates a template stating that the image was published more than 120 years ago, which is not quite true by six years. What should be done in this case? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you can't show it's public domain in both the source country and the US, it would have to be removed. ( t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- An alternative is to upload it locally on English Wikipedia, where only US copyright applies. Like this image: [1] Then the Commons version should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for deletion and removed it from the article. I think that it might just be easier to use another image from an older source (such as Andrews' skull paper) in its place. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could also move another image already in the article up there to make it less crammed elsewhere. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've moved the image of the paddles up to that place (as it has some relevance as they came from the Leeds Collection) and the life restoration down to where they used to be. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could also move another image already in the article up there to make it less crammed elsewhere. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for deletion and removed it from the article. I think that it might just be easier to use another image from an older source (such as Andrews' skull paper) in its place. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- An alternative is to upload it locally on English Wikipedia, where only US copyright applies. Like this image: [1] Then the Commons version should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you can't show it's public domain in both the source country and the US, it would have to be removed. ( t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added the "deathyear" parameter to all of these, except for File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png. I couldn't find anything online about Jaccard's death date. Adding {{PD-old-assumed}} creates a template stating that the image was published more than 120 years ago, which is not quite true by six years. What should be done in this case? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Other image licensing looks OK.
- I would consider scaling up images. I have mine set to display larger than the default and I still have trouble seeing the full details of the images.
- I've scaled up the ones I felt could be larger. How do these look, and are there any others that could use larger sizes? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks better. This is somewhat subjective as it depends a lot on your display settings. ( t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've scaled up the ones I felt could be larger. How do these look, and are there any others that could use larger sizes? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sandwiching in Palaeobiology section
- I've moved the life restoration up into classification. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(t · c) buidhe 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pass pending removal of the Jaccard image. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Treaty of Guînes
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. 17 years after the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War a draft treaty to end it was signed. This was supposed to be finalised and ratified in front of the Pope six months later. But by then the French King had changed his mind, hostilities were renewed and the war lasted a further 101 years. There is limited information in the sources on this curiosity, but I believe that I have worked in what there is and that the article is substantial enough to be up to a FAC. Other opinions may be available, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks fine (t · c) buidhe 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
BasedMises
I would like to preface this with the unmistakable fact that I am not very experienced in grading featured articles. I cannot comment on whether or not it is a FA, although I can assure you, it likely is. However, I would recommend some very minor changes:
- Add the English capture of Caen to the section discussing the French defeats at the Battle of Crécy and Calais; in the same section, change heavily to decisively
- Done.
- Remove "that" from unnecessary areas
- Several removed. IMO the eight remaining are all "necessary".
- Occasionally it feels underlinked, but this is purely from a reader's perspective
- Well, possibly I pay too much attention to MOS:OVERLINK. and at the margin it is a subjective decision. I have gone through the article and added several Wikilinks, although in several cases it seemed that I was stretching. See what you think.
- Certainly seems better. It is likely the optimal amount of linkage.
- Well, possibly I pay too much attention to MOS:OVERLINK. and at the margin it is a subjective decision. I have gone through the article and added several Wikilinks, although in several cases it seemed that I was stretching. See what you think.
BasedMisesMont Pelerin 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi BasedMises, don't worry about inexperience too much - although thanks for flagging it up - we all have to start somewhere, and all constructive contributions are grist for the mill. Many thanks for these thoughts; I shall address them as soon as I can and ping you. Meanwhile, if anything else occurs to you, don't be shy. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi BasedMises, your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi BasedMises, don't worry about inexperience too much - although thanks for flagging it up - we all have to start somewhere, and all constructive contributions are grist for the mill. Many thanks for these thoughts; I shall address them as soon as I can and ping you. Meanwhile, if anything else occurs to you, don't be shy. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from SusunW
- Comment: A read through shows inconsistency of commas. I know that punctuation is different in BE and AE, so perhaps this is a situation of variance in style, but in any case, you should either use commas consistently after dates or not use them. Same for Oxford commas and introductory clauses, either use them or don't. My preference would be to use them in each of those situations, but that is preference and certainly not required.
- Well spotted. It must have been me who did that, in a fit of sub-literacy, but I am struggling to believe it. Extraneous commas removed.
- Methinks it was gremlins.
- Well spotted. It must have been me who did that, in a fit of sub-literacy, but I am struggling to believe it. Extraneous commas removed.
Lede
- Link Guînes in the 1st sentence and not in the 2nd paragraph.
- Done.
- "… A truce was agreed" reads awkwardly to me. Can a truce agree to something? I would perhaps use brokered or negotiated, but maybe it’s a BE vs AE thing? (See also this wording in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.)
- Truces aren't agreed in the US. How odd. Google finds a 100,000 instances of "A truce was agreed" - [2].
- You are asking me how wars are settled? Me? Maybe truces are agreed, it just sounds weird to me. Terms are agreed upon, but the actual truce seems like it would just be accepted or rejected.
- Truces aren't agreed in the US. How odd. Google finds a 100,000 instances of "A truce was agreed" - [2].
- Why was Guînes an important town?
- I have added "a strategically located strongpoint". Does that work?
- yes
- I have added "a strategically located strongpoint". Does that work?
- Link Innocent VI
- Done.
- This "Negotiations were reopened and a peace agreement whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory was rapidly agreed and the draft formally signed on 6 April" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps: "Negotiations, whereby Edward abandoned his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory, were reopened and a peace agreement was rapidly drafted and signed on 6 April."
- I prefer sentences where events are in chronological order. How about "Negotiations were reopened and the English emissaries suggested that Edward abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. This was rapidly agreed and a draft treaty was formally signed on 6 April."?
- fine
- I prefer sentences where events are in chronological order. How about "Negotiations were reopened and the English emissaries suggested that Edward abandon his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory. This was rapidly agreed and a draft treaty was formally signed on 6 April."?
- "…round of warfare may leave", might leave? Because may typically is iffy but probable, whereas might is used for hypothetical situations, but maybe it's a BE vs AE thing?
- Changed to "might".
Background
- "…declared they were forfeit" is confusing. What was forfeited? English title to lands, perhaps?
- I have changed to "declared that these lands were forfeit". As it says "regarding the status of English-held lands in south-west France" in the previous sentence I hope that us clear(er).
- yes
- I have changed to "declared that these lands were forfeit". As it says "regarding the status of English-held lands in south-west France" in the previous sentence I hope that us clear(er).
- "This marked the start" seems very passive for beginning a war. Perhaps, "His action started (or sparked)"?
- It was very passive. There were years of bad tempered negotiations both before and after what was only with hindsight recognisable as the outbreak of serious hostilities.
- fine
- It was very passive. There were years of bad tempered negotiations both before and after what was only with hindsight recognisable as the outbreak of serious hostilities.
- I think the sentence "In 1340 the English king…" reads clearer as "In 1340, the English king Edward III, as the closest male relative of Philip's predecessor Charles IV, laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France in order to permit his allies who were also vassals of the French crown to lawfully wage war on it."
- Done.
- What other aims?
- Cough. Good point. Specified.
- Thanks
- Cough. Good point. Specified.
- "It was to run for nine months…" what does this mean? The term of the truce was for nine months or it was successfully adhered to for nine months? (I think you mean term, as the following sentence says clashes continued, but 9 months seems an odd period to negotiate.)
- I can't see what is wrong with the original, nearly all late-Medieval truces ran for specific periods, and this one was for nine months. But trusting you that something is awry I have changed to "It was agreed that it would expire nine months later". How is that?
- fine
- I can't see what is wrong with the original, nearly all late-Medieval truces ran for specific periods, and this one was for nine months. But trusting you that something is awry I have changed to "It was agreed that it would expire nine months later". How is that?
- What is a freelancing soldier? It sounds like someone who goes out and wages war independently, i.e. terrorist. But I am guessing it is more like a mercenary?
- OK. The etymology of free lance. See Lances fournies for what a "lance" was. (A small unit that accompanied a knight when he went into battle during the 14th and 15th centuries, a lance might have consisted of one or two squires, the knight himself and one to three foot soldiers or archers.) The knight would usually be bound by an oath of fealty to a feudal superior. If not, he, and his lance, would be described as "free". During war time they may sell their services and thus be considered "mercenaries", but not much more so than soldiers today who fight for pay. (Swift homage to Houseman's poem.) These free lances were loose cannons when there was little or no fighting going on. They would frequently strike off on their own on unauthorised looting sprees. This became known politely as "freelancing". When doing this they were the opposite of mercenaries. Possibly they could be equated to freebooters or pirates; or even more loosely to privateers. I have had this discussion before and am loath to describe them inaccurately. I could suppose go with something like "a band of English soldiers on an unauthorised expedition ..."?
- You should word it how it makes sense from a standpoint of military history, of which I clearly do not have a grasp. Perhaps just linking to Lances fournies would allow the reader to ascertain the context.
- Good idea. Linked.
- You should word it how it makes sense from a standpoint of military history, of which I clearly do not have a grasp. Perhaps just linking to Lances fournies would allow the reader to ascertain the context.
- OK. The etymology of free lance. See Lances fournies for what a "lance" was. (A small unit that accompanied a knight when he went into battle during the 14th and 15th centuries, a lance might have consisted of one or two squires, the knight himself and one to three foot soldiers or archers.) The knight would usually be bound by an oath of fealty to a feudal superior. If not, he, and his lance, would be described as "free". During war time they may sell their services and thus be considered "mercenaries", but not much more so than soldiers today who fight for pay. (Swift homage to Houseman's poem.) These free lances were loose cannons when there was little or no fighting going on. They would frequently strike off on their own on unauthorised looting sprees. This became known politely as "freelancing". When doing this they were the opposite of mercenaries. Possibly they could be equated to freebooters or pirates; or even more loosely to privateers. I have had this discussion before and am loath to describe them inaccurately. I could suppose go with something like "a band of English soldiers on an unauthorised expedition ..."?
- Perhaps: "…desperate measures to raise money, set about raising an army, and resume the war"?
- Instead I have expanded the last sentence to "Thus the opportunistic capture of Guînes resulted in the war resuming."
- fine
- Instead I have expanded the last sentence to "Thus the opportunistic capture of Guînes resulted in the war resuming."
Prelude
- Difficult to approach the castle”? I am sure this is my misunderstanding of military operations but it seems really passive. Unless there were obstacles—men, moats, weapons in the way—what was stopping them from walking up to it? Do you mean take/storm the castle?
- Just as you surmise. The source: "surrounded by moats or marsh on every side" ... "almost inaccessible by land".
- Can we just clarify that in the text, i.e. "Difficult to approach the castle by land or some such?
- Done.
- Can we just clarify that in the text, i.e. "Difficult to approach the castle by land or some such?
- Just as you surmise. The source: "surrounded by moats or marsh on every side" ... "almost inaccessible by land".
Treaty
- "…ex-archbishop of Canterbury among others", are you saying Islip had more titles or there were other negotiators? Perhaps, a semi-colon is needed after Canterbury?
- That seems an unusual grammar, but I take your point. Done.
- Verb tense seems awkward in "After several meetings". Either offset "reconvening on 19 May" with commas, or use "would reconvene".
- Went with the latter.
- Agreement was agreed seems redundant. Perhaps "Edward assented on 30 March to the principle of a peace agreement, abandoning his claim to the French throne in exchange for French territory."
- Chronological order again. And your proposal loses the role of the negotiators. I think "of a peace agreement" is the problem and it adds nothing, so I have deleted it.
- fine
- Chronological order again. And your proposal loses the role of the negotiators. I think "of a peace agreement" is the problem and it adds nothing, so I have deleted it.
- Again perhaps a BE vs AE thing, but I would say "By it, England…"
- Comma added, although it now reads oddly to me.
- Same for "In the same ceremony, English…"
- Ditto and ditto.
- "…another round of warfare may leave him" see above may vs. might
- Done.
- "…1355 campaigning season"? Do we need campaigning? Sounds political, but obviously is used for military strategy.
- We do, it is; but I have found a link! Does that help?
- yes
- We do, it is; but I have found a link! Does that help?
I think that's it for me. Thanks for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero
Thoughts
- Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War is a tertiary source. Why is it used instead of secondary sources?
- Largely because there is no policy against it; WP:RSPRIMARY "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Pragmatically because secondary sources, being largely narrative, tend not to make simple statements like "The Hundred Years' War began in 1337 and ended in 1455", Encyclopedias do, and so are useful for supporting simple, uncontroversial facts. And secondary sources frequently aren't: so Rogers p. 291 (which is cited in the article in 25, 28 and 32) in his cites mentions Fowler, Perroy and another work by himself. I agree that this is not usual, but it is not that uncommon. And Wagner is a top historian himself. He cites the article "Guines, Treaty of" solely to Sumption, but there is more in his article than Sumption provides, otherwise, as you say, Wagner wouldn't be needed.
- The publisher seems to be Greenwood Press and the front matter claims that it is out of Westport, CT in the US. The UK location is listed as London. Maybe this is a US vs UK edition?
- No, it is me getting it wrong. Fixed.
- Weirdly the ISBN brings up Faber and Faber and U. Penn. Press as the publisher of Sumption's history of the 100 years war. Is this a UK vs US issue as well?
- I suspect that someone has run auto ed or a similar bot over the article. I have reinstated the ISBNs as they are on the works' title pages, but who knows when some good faith soul will "improve" them?
- Dictionary of Battles and Sieges is also a tertiary source and seems to be from the same publisher as Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War but with a slightly different name/location pair
- Dropped. Not really necessary.
- JSTOR has some stuff beyond the books that you used that might be of interest
--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support passed my source review. Spotchecks not done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Saint-Malo
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This article covers a large but little-remembered battle between the US Army, with the support of French and British forces, and the German Army in France during August and September 1944. Allied forces assaulted the heavily defended resort town of Saint-Malo in the hope of capturing its port and eliminating the German garrison. This led to what the war correspondent Lee Miller described as "fortress warfare reminiscent of crusader times". The Allies eventually prevailed, but as the Germans had completely demolished the port little was achieved by the victory. The battle is perhaps most known today as the subject of the final chapters of the award winning novel All the Light We Cannot See.
I first became aware of this battle and its unusual nature after seeing an exhibition of Miller's photographs at the Imperial War Museums in London during 2015. I created this article last year after belatedly realising that we didn't have an article on it. It was assessed as a GA in March 2021 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in April. The article has since been further expanded any copy edited, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. To pre-empt a possible comment, the article relies heavily on the US Army official history as every other source I have been able to find is also obviously based on this work; there doesn't seem to have been any subsequent significant original research into the topic. Given this, I favoured going to the horse's mouth, rather than using works which re-hashed it. I have drawn on a large range of other works, including more recent works, to round out the story wherever possible. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- IR pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 13:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
Interesting. Last year I was looking to write an article or three on some of the US Army's pre-breakout battles in the Cotentin. But I really struggled to find much in the way of sources. (I ended up writing a couple of articles on the Battle of Crete.) So I look forward to seeing how you have addressed a similar problem. A full review to follow.
- Cite 81: "p." → 'pp.'.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Allies sought to capture the town so that its port could be used to land supplies ... it was decided to capture rather than contain Saint-Malo in order to secure its port ..." This seems like a duplication.
- I've tweaked the wording to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht". This being the English Wikipedia, why are we communicating in a language very few readers will understand?
- Some German terms are better known to English readers in that language. OKW is one of them. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oberkommando der Wehrmacht is for better or worse the common name English-language name here, but I've added a translation. Nick-D ( talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "and the other French ports with prewar fortifications as fortresses" Suggest deleting "the".
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "gained a reputation for war crimes." Insert 'committing'.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "any partisans taken as prisoner". I am not sure about "as".
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "after it managed to breakout from Normandy." It may just be me, but this looks a bit clunky. Perhaps "after it broke out from Normandy."?
- Yep, done Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "a collapse in the German positions." Optional: → 'a collapse of the German position'.
- Tweaked to read better here Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "led to a change in plans." Whose?
- Tweaked to clarify Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "On 3 August Bradley suggested to Patton". Suggested or ordered?
- I've added material clarifying the changes in plans here. They're a bit hard to follow, as the senior American generals were changing their plans very frequently at this time due to the unexpected German collapse Patton and some of his divisional commanders pushing back against (and occasionally ignoring) orders they didn't agree with. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "the resistance in Brittany was activated on 2 August". You explained earlier that it had always been active?
- I've clarified this - they were directed to start a general attack, while avoiding "open warfare". It seems that the resistance exceeded their instructions though! Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "of these areas and their transport infrastructure". Suggest "their" → 'of the'.
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "This fort had originally been designed by the great engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban." Is it known when?
- The eighteenth century - added. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Pointe de la Varde (fr)". Is there meant to be a link here?
- Red linked. It's interesting that our coverage of French coastal fortifications isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "were mutually supporting". Perhaps a brief in line explanation of this concept.
- Tweaked to make this clearer. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have rephrased to avoid "mutually supporting", which you have done well and is fine, but you use it twice more in the article. You either need to rephrase both of these or actually define it somewhere.
- Tweaked. Writing this article has illustrated that our coverage of siege/positional warfare isn't great, as it should be possible to link these terms. Nick-D ( talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have rephrased to avoid "mutually supporting", which you have done well and is fine, but you use it twice more in the article. You either need to rephrase both of these or actually define it somewhere.
- "A key deficiency was that few artillery guns were emplaced." Does this mean that there were too few artillery guns, or that there were sufficient, but that they were not emplaced? And what does "emplaced" mean?
- There weren't many guns - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have removed this mention of "emplaced", but have used it twice more ...
- Tweaked Nick-D ( talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have removed this mention of "emplaced", but have used it twice more ...
- "assault guns"> An explanation of what these might be for non-aficionados?
- Linked. The concept was a bit tricky to understand by this period of the war, as the Germans were often using them as tanks. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it were easy, they wouldn't need us.
- "Despite Patton's intention to avoid siege operations, Middleton believed that the German force at Saint-Malo was too strong to be safely bypassed, as it could potentially attack the supply lines supporting the forces advancing into Brittany." I don't understand the first part of this. It reads to me as if both commanders wished to avoid sieges.
- I think that the changes earlier in the article should make this clearer, and have tweaked the wording here as well. Middleton was much more cautious than Patton, and had a better feel for the area. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Should the dates not be given in US format?
- They are in US military format. See WP:MILFORMAT. True story: visiting one of the antebellum homes in Louisiana, I signed the visitors' book using a military format date. My two US Army buddies signed it the same way. Then a bus load of American seniors arrived and complained bitterly about having to use the US military format - the idea of not doing so did not occur to them. (Later we got into trouble for locating the slave quarters out the back - not part of the tour apparently.) Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, this is the format used in the US Army official history, for instance. Nick-D ( talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- They are in US military format. See WP:MILFORMAT. True story: visiting one of the antebellum homes in Louisiana, I signed the visitors' book using a military format date. My two US Army buddies signed it the same way. Then a bus load of American seniors arrived and complained bitterly about having to use the US military format - the idea of not doing so did not occur to them. (Later we got into trouble for locating the slave quarters out the back - not part of the tour apparently.) Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I knew that, I had a brain fart!
- "around 10,000 Germans in the region". Suggest "region" → 'area'.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "an artillery battalion". It may be helpful to readers to give an idea of how many guns there were in one of those.
- Twelve. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""Added a note to this effect. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "suffered 31 killed and 106 wounded". It would be helpful if even a vague idea of the battalions strength on entering combat may have been.
- I've added a note on the nominal size of US Army infantry battalions at this time. It's likely that the battalion would have been below strength though. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "increasingly used white phosphorus rounds." Why, and what are they?
- Added 'incendiary', but I think that the link should make this pretty clear? Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- What is "napalm"?
- Clarified. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- "To transport the troops, 15 US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel were moved by truck"> Something has gone awry with the grammar here.
- This was the awkward name of the things. Despite their central role in the Allied war effort, the grammar for amphibious craft was awful (eg, pretty much everything hinged off the awkwardly-named Landing Ship, Tanks). The abbreviations are often used, but I'm not sure if that's an improvement in this context. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that we use the contemporary military nomenclature - imagine if I did so with my Medieval articles. How about "US Navy landing craft, vehicle, personnel" → 'US Navy infantry landing craft' or similar/
Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thank you for this review. I think that I may have addressed all the comments, but please let me know if I haven't. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- What qualifies Bardham to be described as an "historian"? And why is "To the last man" a reliable source? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was published by Frontline books, which is an imprint of Pen & Sword, a reputable publisher of military history works (I think they have a few other imprints). Googling him shows that he authored a couple of other works on related aspects of the war, including Hitler's U-Boat Fortresses which was published by one of the scholarly publisher Rowman & Littlefield's vast stable of imprints. It doesn't look like he was a qualified historian, but a couple of obits noted that he wrote about the war [3] [4]. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I am convinced. I have and have read the same volume and it is indescribably poor. As you only cite it twice and for non-controversial points I shall be Nelsonian.
- Hmm, OK. I've been relying on the Google Books previews, which are pretty good for this battle. As you note, the two points I've used it as a citation for aren't controversial - Bradham simply states a conclusion about the nature of the German resistance that pretty much every other author describes (Blumenson for instance highlights all the instances the German commanders made histrionic statements and fought on in the face of obvious defeat, and almost every author notes that Aulock was nicknamed the 'mad colonel' for these behaviours. A range of sources also note how badly Aulock treated the civilian population during the battle and turned down opportunities to avoid the destruction of the town). Nick-D ( talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Even better after the changes in response to the various reviewers comments. A handful of come backs from me above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for these further comments. Nick-D ( talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I am convinced. I have and have read the same volume and it is indescribably poor. As you only cite it twice and for non-controversial points I shall be Nelsonian.
Hawkeye7
@Gog the Mild: Zawed would have been my first port of call for an article on Crete. As Nick pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of American interest in the campaigns in North West Europe, except for the Battle of the Bulge. However the Brits and Canadians have done a lot of work lately, and I have a pile of material on the campaign in southern France. Let me know if you're interested in working on some of them.
Oh yeah. I reviewed this article at A-Class and Support it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. Yes, there's lots of opportunities to develop articles on the campaign in North West Europe. Our coverage of the fighting in 1945 is especially bad. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D, I have for a while been toying with writing an article on the Battle of La Haye-du-Puits. Might you be interested in a collaboration?
- I would be willing to help you with it. Looks like we don't have an article in English, although there is one in French ( fr:Bataille de La Haye-du-Puits) Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, re Crete: possibly, but I have pushed two battles through to FA anyway. I seem to have run out of steam a bit on these. Zawed, you reviewed them both, would you be interested in a collaboration on the Battle of Prison Valley?
- Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild, would be good to work with you on a collaboration. I have a few print sources in relation to the NZers on Crete that will be useful. Zawed ( talk) 10:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D, I have for a while been toying with writing an article on the Battle of La Haye-du-Puits. Might you be interested in a collaboration?
Support from Ceoil
- I expect to support this impressive account.
- The Imperial War Museums hold a recording identified as an account of HMS Malaya bombarding Cézembre in its collection `- made by whom
- The BBC - added. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The phrase "had been" appears 14 times, and is a bit vague. Eg "Extensive fortifications had been constructed in the Saint-Malo area"...in the lead up to the American invasion presumably, though earlier we are told that the town had been designed for defence over centuries.
- Got this down to 6 times. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Was confused by this: Accordingly, the Overlord plan specified that securing Brittany would be the main objective of Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's Twelfth United States Army Group after it managed to breakout from Normandy. This task was assigned to the Third Army
- It was part of the army group - clarified. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- more later, still only scanning. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for these comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did a number of [light] copyedits during initial readings, and the page has improved since. Support, nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did a number of [light] copyedits during initial readings, and the page has improved since. Support, nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for these comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Sturmvogel_66
Just some drive by comments on stuff that I noticed while doing the source review
- Burt's book British Battleships 1919–1945 specifically states that Malaya bombarded the islands off St. Malo on 1 September. Lemme know if you want fuller bibliographic info.
- Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary: in the note here I'm using some illustrations from the main works on the topic rather than noting what every source says. It seems most likely that the ship was HMS Malaya given the BBC record, though Warspite was also operating in the area at the time (she shelled Brest). The British official histories don't mention this action unfortunately, as they would be the best source here - I suspect that this is what has led to the confusion in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- The German garrison names are misspelled. Should be Küstenverteidigungsgruppe Rance, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is what the source uses. Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- An unforced error by the author. See [5] for examples.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Checking Google books shows that terminology is used by German-language works - tweaked accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- An unforced error by the author. See [5] for examples.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is what the source uses. Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review
- Cites consistently formatted.
- Some British publications have United Kingdom as part of the location, others don't. Standardize these. Otherwise consistently formatted
- My understanding is that the convention is that highly specific locations only need to be added for cities which aren't well-known publishing centres (e.g., no need to refer to 'New York City, United States' or 'London, United Kingdom' as everyone will know what's being referred to). The UK locations where I've included 'UK' are those which are a bit obscure - Barnsley, Abingdon-on-Thames, etc (ditto Annapolis, Maryland, etc). Oxford and London are well-known. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Randal needs an ISSN
- Added Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Spotchecks on ISBNs and ISSNs proved out
- Sources are highly reliable
- Prose spotchecks not done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for these checks and comments Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for these checks and comments Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional comment (not to step on Sturm's toes here, but it occurred to me when I looked over the article) - are we concerned about the age of a few of the sources, most notably Blumenson, since the article relies on it heavily? The source obviously predates the public release of Ultra - have you looked into more recent publications to see whether Enigma decrypts played a role in the operation? I'd assume it was a factor in Allied planning, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing on Ultra's role in this battle in Zaloga's recent work, and he usually comments on this form of intelligence in his works on World War II. The relevant volume of British intelligence in the second world war notes that intelligence on German naval operations from Saint-Malo before D-Day that was sourced from Ultra and that the Allies were tracking the 77th Infantry Division as it moved between Normandy and Saint-Malo, but doesn't cover this battle in any detail. This Masters thesis has a few interesting snippets, but as a masters thesis isn't a RS (though its author recently retired as a Lieutenant General!). The other recent works consulted don't mention Ultra. My understanding is that the value of Ultra at this time was mixed, as German Army units in France used landlines for communications wherever possible. The fact that the Americans greatly under-estimated the size of the garrison at Saint-Malo and blundered into a bigger battle than they expected indicates that Ultra wasn't much use to them in this battle. I've added some extra material to flesh the intelligence picture facing the Allies out. Nick-D ( talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Mosasaurus
- Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This article will be the first article about a mosasaur (or any extinct marine reptile apex predator) to receive a FAC. It is about the type genus of the mosasaurs, which is one one of the largest marine predators in history. It is also quite culturally significant. The stories of its fossils are historically and culturally significant in the Netherlands and France, and they stood alongside the mastodon and Megalosaurus as the pioneering fossils that helped develop concepts like extinction and the precursors of evolution. Thanks to films like Jurassic World the genus today is among the most iconic prehistoric creatures. In addition, we know a substantial deal about the biology of the animal, which I've summarized the spectrum of breadth of in this article, covering just about every published literature that touches on the genus. Given that Mosasaurus is not the only mosasaur with such a depth in history and scientific knowledge, starting with the most famous of them all can set a great model for how others can be written. Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Lythronaxargestes
I left extensive comments on this article in a peer review and I was fairly happy with it the last time I looked at it. I'll take another look through next week given the recent revisions for and after the GA, but I expect to support once I've done so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
IR by Buidhe
Page size is 14434 words / 91 kB readable prose. IMO this is against length criterion (see Article size); in general, many FAC reviewers are looking for articles no longer than 10,000 words. I strongly suggest splitting the article or trimming on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 the content. One possibility for a spin off article might be Research history of Mosasaurus. This is a lot to do over the course of FAC so I would suggest withdrawing and re nominating once that's done. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Buidhe. Heartfox ( talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've been working on trimming prior to FAC; I also was hoping if an exception could be made given the sheer scope the article covers like in the case of Maya civilization. I've lowered the prose count to around the 10k range; I don't think being a few hundred above exactly ten thousand would be problematic, but I can try to trim more if so. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The condensed summary in the article right now fits awkwardly. You should have a paragraph, however brief, mentioning the other species by name so that the rest of the article has context. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- As for the size, my calculator script says "Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10361 words) "readable prose size"", which I think is within acceptable range. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've expanded Research history to summarize all other confirmed species. Size-wise, my script says 10775 words, which I think remains acceptable. Macrophyseter | talk 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- As for the size, my calculator script says "Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10361 words) "readable prose size"", which I think is within acceptable range. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The condensed summary in the article right now fits awkwardly. You should have a paragraph, however brief, mentioning the other species by name so that the rest of the article has context. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've been working on trimming prior to FAC; I also was hoping if an exception could be made given the sheer scope the article covers like in the case of Maya civilization. I've lowered the prose count to around the 10k range; I don't think being a few hundred above exactly ten thousand would be problematic, but I can try to trim more if so. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing is good. I do think there are still some parts of the prose that go into a lot of detail, and might be better moved to sub-articles, but paleontology isn't the focus of my editing so I'll see what others have to say. Without the research history section it's a lot more manageable. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jumping in here, I saw a comment about too many images on the right, which was then turned into a gallery, but what guideline is that based on? Aesthetically, it looks much better to fill out the white space left by the current cladograms, as it doesn't break up the text (like the current gallery does), just fills empty space. I've never seen such a suggestion before (having made similar white space filler in several FAC articles), and I do think the former version looked much better. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like FunkMonk comments faster than I do, lol; the way the images in "Phylogeny and evolution of the genus" were clustered before your (Buidhe) edit was an intentionally planned format as a way to present the diversity of species without interrupting the prose read. Is there a reason as to why that would not be an appropriate format? Macrophyseter | talk 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some FAs have imagery which consist entirely of a row of right aligned images, such as the recent Ring ouzel, so I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as there isn't WP:image sandwiching, I don't see what the guidelines would have against this. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The issue was that it's wrong to have three right-aligned images in a row, but that the images were in excess of the text (see screenshot). According to MOS, the solution to excess images are use less images or combine them somehow (multiple image template, gallery, etc.) so as to avoid leaving a lot of whitespace. ( t · c) buidhe 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Another formatting option is to combine all four images in the section into one vertical multiple images template, which would not leave much whitespace. ( t · c) buidhe 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strange, doesn't look like that on my screen, it just fills up the white space. There is a way around this that we've used elsewhere, Lythronaxargestes or IJReid I think might know. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have the same issue here [6], buidhe? I think it can be solved by making the cladograms less wide. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Depends on exactly how wide the browser window is. It either looks like this (just fine) or this (because the topology + image together are too wide for the window, they separate). Different viewers will see one or the other depending on browser settings. ( t · c) buidhe 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is how I see it [7], and how it was intended. It is odd that in your screenshot, the text associated with the cladogram doesn't reach the images, yet it still creates the white gap. Pinging Jts1882 too, who might know something. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've done some investigation and that situation only appears when the window displaying the article is scaled to a certain small width range due to the cladogram blocking the images (narrower, and the text fills up the white space; wider, and the cladograms stop blocking the images). The same situation exists for [8], and probably any image that appears side-by-side with any cladogram. Moving the images up a few paragraphs (like to the second) fixes this issue, although some might see the resulting narrow spacing between the left image as a borderline sandwich. I'm still against a gallery format because it distracts from the content of the text. Macrophyseter | talk 15:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- An alternative way could also be what I've done at quagga (by the cladogram and under description), where multiple images are collected horizontally on the right, without disrupting the text like a gallery. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- A problem with that is the image dimensions are very different, so you end up with a tiny square-ish image and a gigantic rectangular image in the cluster. Do you know if there are any formatting solutions to that situation if I go with the quagga example? Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- No sandwiching if all images are aligned on the same side. ( t · c) buidhe 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think you had a fourth image in the row once, maybe it could help with balance? It can be a pain unless you find that sort of stuff funny (which I do), but I just experiment with different layouts and numbers of images, as in Cimoliopterus or Dilophosaurus I've been working on lately. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The fourth image was the hoffmannii skeleton that's now in the taxobox. It was there because I originally had a picture of another skeleton in the taxobox, but I had to take that down because the CC license was incorrect. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think you had a fourth image in the row once, maybe it could help with balance? It can be a pain unless you find that sort of stuff funny (which I do), but I just experiment with different layouts and numbers of images, as in Cimoliopterus or Dilophosaurus I've been working on lately. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- No sandwiching if all images are aligned on the same side. ( t · c) buidhe 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- A problem with that is the image dimensions are very different, so you end up with a tiny square-ish image and a gigantic rectangular image in the cluster. Do you know if there are any formatting solutions to that situation if I go with the quagga example? Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- An alternative way could also be what I've done at quagga (by the cladogram and under description), where multiple images are collected horizontally on the right, without disrupting the text like a gallery. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Responding to ping. It's a bit difficult to comment as the page has changed as the discussion progresses, with the images now in a gallery. I assume the two cladograms were put in a table that was set to a maximum of 75% screen width to allow images to be floated to the right. The problem with this is it is it needs a wide screen. If the images don't fit in the 25% left for them, the cladogram gets moved down leaving white space. This also leaves the cladograms slightly scrunched even when there is white space to the right. One solution would be to float the two cladograms so they are displayed vertically on narrower screens (not ideal for the comparison, but maybe OK in portrait mode on a phone). {{ clade gallery}} is responsive (e.g. Neoaves). I've made this edit (now reverted) to show the cladograms in a responsive gallery with the images are floated to the right. The side by side comparison only shows on relatively wide screens, with the cladograms displayed vertically on narrower screens. Given the side by side comparison is useful, the image gallery seems preferable, although I thought these were discouraged in FA articles.
- Looking good to me, but I'll of course lets others decide. This is how it looked "originally": [9]
FunkMonk ( talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Demo looks great, I think that format would be the best choice as it preserves the original format but also fixes the spacing issue. Added. Macrophyseter | talk 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking good to me, but I'll of course lets others decide. This is how it looked "originally": [9]
FunkMonk ( talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've done some investigation and that situation only appears when the window displaying the article is scaled to a certain small width range due to the cladogram blocking the images (narrower, and the text fills up the white space; wider, and the cladograms stop blocking the images). The same situation exists for [8], and probably any image that appears side-by-side with any cladogram. Moving the images up a few paragraphs (like to the second) fixes this issue, although some might see the resulting narrow spacing between the left image as a borderline sandwich. I'm still against a gallery format because it distracts from the content of the text. Macrophyseter | talk 15:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is how I see it [7], and how it was intended. It is odd that in your screenshot, the text associated with the cladogram doesn't reach the images, yet it still creates the white gap. Pinging Jts1882 too, who might know something. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Depends on exactly how wide the browser window is. It either looks like this (just fine) or this (because the topology + image together are too wide for the window, they separate). Different viewers will see one or the other depending on browser settings. ( t · c) buidhe 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have the same issue here [6], buidhe? I think it can be solved by making the cladograms less wide. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strange, doesn't look like that on my screen, it just fills up the white space. There is a way around this that we've used elsewhere, Lythronaxargestes or IJReid I think might know. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some FAs have imagery which consist entirely of a row of right aligned images, such as the recent Ring ouzel, so I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as there isn't WP:image sandwiching, I don't see what the guidelines would have against this. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like FunkMonk comments faster than I do, lol; the way the images in "Phylogeny and evolution of the genus" were clustered before your (Buidhe) edit was an intentionally planned format as a way to present the diversity of species without interrupting the prose read. Is there a reason as to why that would not be an appropriate format? Macrophyseter | talk 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jumping in here, I saw a comment about too many images on the right, which was then turned into a gallery, but what guideline is that based on? Aesthetically, it looks much better to fill out the white space left by the current cladograms, as it doesn't break up the text (like the current gallery does), just fills empty space. I've never seen such a suggestion before (having made similar white space filler in several FAC articles), and I do think the former version looked much better. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack
- it as an Ichthyosaurus – I think either "it as Ichthyosaurus" or "it as an ichthyosaur". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with the former since it's not the name of an individual. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the reason is that genus names are always used without article. It is " Mosasaurus", not "the Mosasaurus". I don't think a formulation such as "identified it as an Ichthyosaurus" is common in the literature for this reason. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm personally used to hearing genus names at times being used with an article, although I will admit that I've only heard it used by those who aren't in the field. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cut anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm personally used to hearing genus names at times being used with an article, although I will admit that I've only heard it used by those who aren't in the field. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the reason is that genus names are always used without article. It is " Mosasaurus", not "the Mosasaurus". I don't think a formulation such as "identified it as an Ichthyosaurus" is common in the literature for this reason. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with the former since it's not the name of an individual. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The type specimen of M. missouriensis was first described in 1834 as a snout fragment – "described as a snout fragment" somehow seems weird. Also, link type specimen.
- This one's a bit tricky since the type specimen consists of two different cataloged specimens. Since they're both the same individual, they would be the holotype. Rearranged the wording if that works. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- But the rest of the skull was discovered earlier by a fur-trapper – would remove the "but", and maybe "had been discovered earlier"?
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- this species was reidentified as a Mosasaurus – "as a species of Mosasaurus"? Or simply "as Mosasaurus"?
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- We don't usually put attributes like nov. sp. ("new species") in the reproduced cladograms, I think because this can be misunderstood in a way that the new species is defined in this very Wikipedia article.
- Substituted with quotations around taxa to preserve distinction that these are proposed and not official names. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest to use "Main article:" instead of "See also:" where appropriate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The most complete skeleton of Mosasaurus, whose species-level identification is debated – maybe the detail on this specimen that follows could be moved to Research history of Mosasaurus, with some more information on its discovery if this is available? It would be very relevant in that article. But in the "description" section, information on where this specimen is on display are just not the right place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I checked the sources and apparently its not as clear about the completeness of the fossil. The skeleton had some restoration, although the degree to which isn't clear, but given the full vertebral formula is known the skeleton probably is complete in vertebral representation. I don't have access to the thesis that described the fossil in detail, so there's not much I can work with at the moment. Also, there are some fossils that are probably more complete, but none of them have been described in whole yet. So I've reworded the passage for now. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- thirty-eight dorsal vertebrae (which includes thoracic and lumbar vertebrae) – the explanation implies that thoracic and lumbar vertebrae can be differentiated in Mosasaurus, but I don't think this is the case. Maybe just "dorsal (back) vertebrae" is enough as explanation.
- I'm pretty sure they can be differentiated by presence/absence of ribs, but apparently scientists don't appear to have the need to differentiate them when talking about vertebrae although it's been done at least once. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- All species of Mosasaurus have seven cervical vertebrae – This contradicts what was said earlier, that one species is only known from isolated teeth. I think it needs re-formulation.
- The article never said that M. beaugei is only known from isolated teeth, but that the type specimen is only isolated teeth. It's also implied in sections like Size that more complete remains are known, and its a bit more explicit in the Research history article. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- the rib cages of Mosasaurus – would use singular: rib cage
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- which implies Mosasaurus – should be "indicates" I think.
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sometimes you give skull length in cm, sometimes in mm. Should be consistent; I personally would go for cm as this is easier to grab at such large numbers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- et al. is an unnecessary technical term, can be replaced with "and colleagues".
- Fixed, but kept when an inline citation is used (i.e. Polycn et al. (2014)) Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand why some information on the species is found in "History of taxonomy" and not under "Other species". For example, M. conodon is discussed a lot in the latter section, but the quite relevant bit that it was moved to a different genus by one study only appears in the "History of taxonomy" section, so there is some disconnect, making it hard to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- The situation regarding M. conodon is from a PhD thesis rather than a peer-reviewed study, so it's not really formally valid yet (It's still important to mention because its currently the only modern research that attempts to clean up the entire genus taxonomy; caveats are noted to point out the thesis case). I don't want to provide so much weight of the thesis on the article, hence why I didn't incorporate its information in Other species. I could as an alternative move History of taxonomy to Research history, but that would put distance between the discussion of the thesis and the cladogram that visualizes it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Robert Roberts (author)
- Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I first read Robert Roberts's book The Classic Slum some years ago. An unusual and beautifully written mix of autobiography and social history, it struck me then as one of the most evocative, brilliantly drawn accounts of life in the English working classes that I have encountered. Along with his autobiography A Ragged Schooling, it offers a richly textured and at times moving insight into the lives and struggles of people who otherwise would have disappeared into obscurity. Unsurprisingly, both books have been mined by historians for decades and were critically acclaimed on their release; they are often set texts for university courses on modern British history today.
I was, therefore, disappointed to find that we had only a two-sentence stub on Roberts and nothing more about his books. That is, until this week when I reworked the article to include a comprehensive summary of Roberts's life, works and contributions to scholarship. It's a compact article, but I do not think there is more that I can say about the topic. Tim riley has kindly reviewed the prose and I've incorporated his suggestions. I therefore believe it meets our criteria and is ready for FA status. Thanks in advance for any comments. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
Pre-emptive notes
- Firstly, Roberts wrote two autobiographies and I have used these to support some of the article text. In most cases, this is attributed inline or supports a quote. It is also used, sparingly, to source some basic biographical facts: his mother's background, his parents' decision to purchase their corner shop, and their business and status in the community. I think that this acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, especially given that the books cited were published by a major university press.
- Secondly, there are hardly any photos of Roberts available publicly; the one I've used is a fair use one taken from the ODNB. It is already a small image and I've had to scale it down further to suit the fair use requirements. There are, to my knowledge, no free images available of his old street, which was demolished years ago. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
- Image review
- Images are appropriately licensed.
- Consider using an infobox such as {{infobox writer}}. I think that most bios benefit from such infoboxes. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks buidhe. I will consider the infobox; I have no strong feelings either way about them. — Noswall59 ( talk) 11:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
Accessibility review
- Some of the images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Heartfox. This should be done now. Thank you, — Noswall59 ( talk) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC).
Ur-Quan
- Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the main antagonist from Star Control II. This article is on the short side as the character is from the pre-internet era: not only before journalists had any deep analysis of a game's story, but arguably before any game character had enough depth to analyze. But there are enough later reviewers who remember this character as a sort of historic turning point, inspiring a later generation of game developers. I focused the weight of the article on the biggest real-world impact, rather than an exhaustive look of plot details, and feel confident it still meets our comprehensiveness requirements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Support by Aoba47
Resolved comments |
---|
These are my comment so far. My main concern is the article does not provide background on Star Control and reads like it was written for a reader already familiar with the game. Since I never heard of these games, I was honestly somewhat lost with the story. I will look through the rest of the article once the above comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I am still going through that part of the article and I will try to get through that tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
After my above comments are completed, I believe I should be ready to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review - pass
Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some consistency issues here - sometimes authors are listed as Last, First other times as First Last. This should be consistent.
- DeMaria 2018 needs page numbers
- For Barton 2016 you have the page range as " pp. 203–", you seem to be missing the second page.
- Escapist is listed as situational at WP:VGRS, although this may be due to a time frame when they exercised little oversight in '17 and '18; would Escapist's early (2006) work be considered high-quality RS?
- What makes 1MoreCastle high-quality RS?
- "Red Bull also highlighted the importance of the Ur-Quan in creating the classic game world of Star Control II.[33]" - Unsure why the opinion of an energy drink manufacturer would really be WP:DUE for an article about a video game character, unless Red Bull has dabblings into video games I'm not aware of.
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_153#Reliable_source_check - suggests that PikiGeek is at least somewhat reliable, but does it meet the higher "high-quality RS" standard?
- Sainsbury 2015 needs page numbers.
- Suggest adding links to CRC Press and No Starch Press, as applicable
Conducted searches in several places and databases and found no indication that there is sizeable scholarly literature that has been omitted.
Will do the spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! For the sources, I fixed the first/last formatting, the page numbers, and the links to publishers. As for the quality of the sources themselves:
- The Escapist piece is written by Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak, who is considered an expert in the industry. The piece focuses on interview material with the developers. It for sure isn't the volunteer-written material we need to be cautious of.
- The Red Bull piece is written by Stuart Houghton, who is a journalist at Kotaku[10], Gizmodo[11], and the New Statesman[12]. I can understand how seeing "RedBull" could be odd at first glance, but they have robust involvement with games now.[13] It warrants a mention, which is the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.
- I removed the 1MoreCastle reference. There's some evidence of editorial review, but it's less than clear.
- I see no issue with the Chris Ullery piece for Pikimal. Ullery is a journalist for the Intelligencer[14] and the Bucks County Courier Times[15] (both published by Gannett). Pikimal is defunct, but had full-time editorial review.[16]
- Hopefully that covers the sources. I was pretty careful and focused more on quality than quantity. Thanks for the spot check too, and let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Explanations for quality sound good, passing on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Explanations for quality sound good, passing on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- I just want to make sure I understand the explanation above re: the lead image. The design elements present in this image are indistinguishable from the original game? How would this avoid copyright issues - did the authorization to produce the game include license to release the graphics as CC? (The link from the image description that may explain this is not working). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed the image, and yes, the images have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Here's an archived link to the open source project's FAQ. (A really inconvenient time for the site to be down.) Let me know if you have any other questions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- So if the images from the original game have been released CC, why not include images from the original game? And if the images from the original game have not been released CC, how could the images from the fan game which are visually indistinguishable have been licensed in that way? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. In the early 2000s, the copyright holders / creators of the original game officially authorized an open source version, and even participated in its creation, so it's not quite accurate to call it a fan game. Here is a sequence from the 1992 DOS version played using an emulator. Here is the same (not identical but nearly indistinguishable) sequence from the open source version, which has been maintained and updated to work with modern systems. When the open source version was created, the original authors released the contents of the game under appropriate public licenses, with the code released under the GNU, and the images and music released under CC. I hope that answers the question and let me know if we need to do anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly is meant by the term "authorized"? Does it encompass release of intellectual rights, or no? Or was their participation to the extent to make that a moot point? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- It means their involvement has been extensive, yeah. It was their idea to release the game as open source. They worked with the open source community to do it, so it's a combination of the original creators and the wider community. They licensed the code and content on a free, perpetual non-commercial license. And when the project was finally made available, they published the licensing info that I linked above. The creators also made their stance clear in public that (direct quote) "our policy has been to let people do whatever they want, as long as they don’t turn our characters into mass murderers or make money with it." I didn't upload the image but it looks like the CC licensing information in the image is correct. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Tornado Over Kansas
- Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a 1929 Regionalist painting by John Steuart Curry. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing
- File:31.159 curry imageprimacy 800-676x548.jpg Nominated for deletion as Whitney Museum says it's still under copyright
- Worst case, Baptism for Kansas will just have to be removed from the article. Is there any avenue of potentially avoiding this? According to DMacks, it should still be considered in the public domain? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I explained on the deletion why their keep rationale is invalid. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:John Steuart Curry - The Line Storm.jpg not sure about this one. Needs PD-US rationale. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- So far, I couldn't find any way to justify PD-US. Could this be considered for fair use? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, although it would be fair use in an article specifically about Line Storm(if notable). (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The main image, I'm not sure. This issue of Life magazine that it was published in (23 Nov 1936) was copyrighted and its copyright was renewed[17], not 100% sure how that applies to the contents of the magazine. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- After this conversation with Nikkimaria, I think the main image will have to be used under fair use as it's not clear that it's out of copyright. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Nice to see you back at FAC with another great article about notable works of art! (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Since it appears that Baptism for Kansas is slated for deletion, and since PD-US so far can not be justified for Line Storm, I removed those images from the article. Hopefully, they can be added back sometime in the future. GeneralPoxter ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
- 'The composition appears "almost theatrically staged."' Note that MOS:QUOTE requires "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original). Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Kids See Ghosts (album)
- Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of successful rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a widespread critical success and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced commercial success in various countries. After having promoted this article to GA status in September 2019, I have frequently monitored it and stayed hard at work, with the article having gone through a peer review and two unfortunately unsuccessful FA candidacies as well as becoming part of a GT and the main article of another! I have looked thoroughly at the previous FACs, assuring to take on as many issues as I can, but I am willing to listen to any further comments made on this one. K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Shoot for the Stars
Resolved comments from User:Shoot for the Stars |
---|
The article looks great Kyle, but the sources are the reason it keeps failing. Sources like HotNewHipHop and Hypebeast are perfectly fine for GA but not are not considered "high quality" sources for FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Support from 100cellsman
I greatly respect the effort being made to improve the article, especially on overshadowed topics regarding black music and musicians. Hope this gets through this time! 웃OO 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that 100cellsman made substantive comments at the first FAC, so this is not a drive by support (t · c) buidhe 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments from TheAmazingPeanuts
Resolved comments from User:TheAmazingPeanuts |
---|
Why integers from zero to nine are not spelled out in words? They are supposed to be that way per MOS:NUMERAL. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Source review
Version reviewed
Quality
- What makes the following sources worthy of inclusion in a featured article?
The FaderRap-UpHotNewHipHopHighsnobietyHipHopDXFactAtwood MagazineRough TradeDazedAnalog PlanetHipersonicalaut.deThe Line of Best FitSonic Magazine
- I am going to start by responding to the assessment of the sources, as I will be going out soon so am not able to go over all of your points in one go. The Fader, Rap-Up and HotNewHipHop are all listed as reliable at album sources plus they all have a proper staff team and editorial process that reports facts unless clearly differentiated as opinion pieces; more of these are published by HNHH but none are in this article. Highsnobiety never came up in the last FAC but I do believe it is reliable due to covering news in subjects including music, also the source changed away from being a blog a while ago. The staff are over 100 strong, so it does not have a problem with lack of an editorial team. HipHopDX focuses on both the album and the performers' genre of hip hop, reporting news regularly to do with rappers and the well-regarded Warner Music Group has ownership of it plus there is an editorial process. A wide range of US music culture is covered by the nearly 20 years old magazine Fact, which established reliable sourceThe Guardian has named as influential thus showing it is worthy of inclusion. Atwood Magazine is a magazine with 40 writers that are based in various countries, with the content focusing on many different artists and it is run by an editor-in-chief. Furthermore, the magazine sets out to provide writing that is authentic and it also was a Webby Award honoree for Best Music Website, helping establish reliability. Rough Trade is the site of an independent record label that has been around for decades and pressed releases for many artists, so it should be clearly reliable. The website for Dazed launched in 2006 digitally for the magazine that has been around since 1991, setting out with a dedicated editorial team including various writers. Blogs are clearly separated from other content on Analog Planet, so the source is not a WP:SELFPUB violation and best-of lists are often published by the website. Hipersonica seems like an unknown quantity due to it being a Spanish website, but the source is dedicated to music and publishes proper articles rather than blogs. Music is dealt with exclusively by laut.de, including hip hop, plus 14 music journalists and programmers work with the magazine and I think that shows reliability. The album sources page I linked to earlier also classifies The Line of Best Fit as reliable, plus reputable aggregator Metacritic has used the site's reviews and established reliable sources such as NME and The Independent have mentioned the reviews. Sonic Magazine has been around for decades and set out to provide well-written music journalism specifically, also it has a proper editorial team. -- K. Peake 10:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
HotNewHipHop—In the previous FAC, both Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria expressed concerns about this source. Even Shoot for the Stars above didn't think it was "high quality". You're going to need a stronger justification than them having a staff to persuade everyone.
I will replace or remove this in all areas to the best of my ability come to think of it, as the publication has repeatedly been questioned like you said.By now I've got round to wiping all usages of HotNewHipHop as a source from the article, managing to replace the majority by using reliable sources! --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The Fader—I am not seeing a staff page or evidence of editorial process.
- I tried hard to research this but they have all contributors listed on separate pages, including the staff that are listed as a contributor rather than members by name. The source has now been omitted from the article by me, which has thankfully not caused any major content removal! --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Rap-Up—What concerns me is that the article has no author listed and I am not seeing a staff page/editorial process.
- I have replaced this source with a Billboard one, as it is better to use a well-regarded source than one with its reliability in question when both report the same info. --K. Peake 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- HipHopDX—Because they are owned by Warner (but not when the articles cited were written) and have a visible editorial process etc. I am willing to accept, but I suggest you provide further evidence in case others take issue with it.
Rough Trade—I think I was confused because you linked to a record label. It appears the link should be Rough Trade (shops), not the record label website.
- Done, I should have checked initially to find the most appropriate article for the release itself. --K. Peake 19:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you elaborate on the justifications for the non-struck sources. Have reliable publications cited them recently, have they been used in books by reputable publishers, do the authors have strong credentials, etc.? It is not enough to have a staff list and not be a blog.
- I have replaced Fact with Exclaim! now, plus in that part of music and production the booklet is used to help source every sentence from the Plain Pat one so I invoked it only once from there onwards per overcite guidelines.
Will look at the other sources tomorrow.Sonic Magazine have managed to secure interviews with many popular artists including Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and Jay-Z, helping establish them as reliable alongside their co-signs from major Swedish newspaper Göteborgs-Posten and well renowned journalist Jan Gradvall .1 The German languages and literature department at the Uni of Michigan ranked laut.de number one on a recommended list for online magazines, plus the publication's coverage was acclaimed by a portal of major German newspaper Rheinische Post; these accolades should indicate reliability. I have now replaced the usage of Atwood Magazine under themes and lyrics with reliable sources that are used elsewhere in the article too. Highsnobiety won the Cultural Blog/Website award at the 2017 Webby Awards, has collaborated with Xbox and Puma, plus here is proof of an editorial process; it says "online editorial", also the about page specifies that the company is drawn to the ideas rather than claiming to present them. Don't all of these combined demonstrate reliability? Taking a look at the about and contact pages of Analog Planet, the website lacks a proper editorial team, authors with strong credentials or any similar recognition, so I have removed it. Hipersonica do not even have an about us page, plus the other pages on the website do not establish reliability themselves and it has now been omitted from this article by me. The new addition of Mondo Sonoro may raise eyebrows due to it being a foreign source, but the magazine is distributed in clothes shops, discos, pubs and music venues in as wide a range as eight regions of Spain, each area for which it has a local edition. Two uni students were the founders and the pulication even evolved from a fanzine to a magazine, plus it has collaborated with Terra Networks and Matadero Madrid, while the contact page specifies the editorial process for the 25 workers. All of this should be solid proof of reliability, but I've either removed or elaborated on my defense of the sources you questioned. --K. Peake 07:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sonic Magazinne—I suggest adding a link to the Swedish Wikipedia page.
- Done and thanks for reassessment of the sources! --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have replaced Fact with Exclaim! now, plus in that part of music and production the booklet is used to help source every sentence from the Plain Pat one so I invoked it only once from there onwards per overcite guidelines.
AllMusic
fn 23 → citing a user review on AllMusic?
Someone must have added that author by accident; fixed to the correct one. -- K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 26 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "On June 1, 2018, a week before the release of Kids See Ghosts, West released his eighth studio album Ye as the second album of the "Wyoming Sessions"."?
- The GQ source is used for the sessions part, while the release date is backed up by AllMusic.
- Can you use something other than AllMusic for the release date? Surely Billboard or something has an article with the Ye release date?
- I replaced with The New York Times, which backs up both parts of the sentence directly and does the same for Daytona's release. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 32 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "A week after its release, fellow rapper Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir as the fourth album of the "Wyoming Sessions""?
- The source mentions it being the fourth album of the sessions. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pitchfork might be slightly better to cite for this. This article also gives Nasir as the fourth album.
- I used that source for the fourth album part instead, but added another PF source to back up the actual release date. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 33 → consensus at WP:ALLMUSIC seems to be it is mostly only reliable for reviews. Are there alternative sources that can be used for the K.T.S.E. release date? Why does it need be cited for track listings (fn 46)? Surely you can cite liner notes or a different source. I suggest limiting the source to the review part only. I don't think this is unreasonable either as this is not an obscure release. Also, attributing the reviewer to the rest of the page (tracklist, release date, etc.) is inaccurate as they're not the author.
- Done for the track listing even though I was using it due to the source displaying the order online, but I think it is usable for release info since that sidebar is not written against like genres plus the dates are from review sources. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- June 23 is written in text, but AllMusic says June 22, as does this Billboard article?
- No idea where I got June 23, 2018 from, probably misread something and got it stuck in my mind. I replaced with the Billboard ref for the release date, while invoking the PF one you listed here too because it supports the album's placement in the sessions. AllMusic has now been removed entirely from the article by me, apart from the KSG review that is seen as usable. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done for the track listing even though I was using it due to the source displaying the order online, but I think it is usable for release info since that sidebar is not written against like genres plus the dates are from review sources. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Spotchecks
- fn 1 → good
fn 10 → "who had since admitted himself into a rehabilitation facility after battling with depression and suicidal thoughts following a Facebook post" → this wording is a bit weird. He made a Facebook post and then entered rehab? That's not what the source says. Additionally I think this is too close to the article text of "had checked into rehab after battling depression and suicidal thoughts".
- Changed the Facebook post parts, plus reworded other areas. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
fn 11 → does not apply to the sentence after the comma
- Can you explain what fn means, as I am confused what you are specifically referring since not all of these numbers are in order with the refs? --K. Peake 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- the number between the brackets [11] from the version reviewed link at the top of the section.
"with the tour being cancelled after the rapper brought Cudi out to perform at his Sacramento show" → which source supports this?
- I don't know how those September 2016 sources ended up there to be honest, have now added a Complex ref that supports the cancellation and Cudi's appearance; interestingly enough, this was one of the sources used to replace The Fader. --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 14 → good
fn 16 → which quote in the article supports "In March 2018, Cudi was spotted recording with West in Wyoming"?
- This is an instance where I replaced HotNewHipHop with a reliable source; the Billboard ref says Cudi was present. --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 27 →
Cudi is not listed - fn 31 → ok
- fn 35 → ok
- fn 42 → ok
- fn 48 → ok
"showed two caricatures that appeared to be of West and Cudi stood by a ball of smoke with a face" → this is really close to the article text "The image shows what is seemingly two caricatures of West and Cudi standing next to a ball of smoke with a face"
- Put more into my own words. --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 52 → ok
- fn 63 → source only says GOOD Music; Def Jam is only mentioned is the Apple Music thing at the bottom, which is a separate source. Wicked Awesome is unmentioned in either.
- Changed to a PF source which mentions both GOOD and Def Jam, plus the Wicked Awesome label is included for numerous releases due to being on the back cover like me and TheAmazingPeanuts discussed; should the booklet be added as a secondary ref to back this up or is it fine now you have full context? Also, the NME ref for the digital download and streaming part in release and promotion mentions the label. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The Pitchfork article does not indicate digital download release; it only gives streaming services.I would add the back cover citation as well. Which NME ref are you referring to?
- In the current revision, I am referring to ref 49 that mentions Wicked Awesome as one of the labels. Also, the source backs up the album as being released for download since it mentions Apple Music. --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can you add ref 49 and the booklet to the citation cell where ref 59 currently is?
- Done. --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Changed to a PF source which mentions both GOOD and Def Jam, plus the Wicked Awesome label is included for numerous releases due to being on the back cover like me and TheAmazingPeanuts discussed; should the booklet be added as a secondary ref to back this up or is it fine now you have full context? Also, the NME ref for the digital download and streaming part in release and promotion mentions the label. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 65 & 66d → where are you seeing August 3, 2018?
- I removed this one altogether since there's no release date for it. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 65 → only Def Jam is given, not Wicked Awesome or GOOD Music
- fn 66a → source says August 22, 2018, not September 28, 2018
- Comment I changed to just 2018 since none of the Amazon sources give a specific date apart from the US and Australia ones (the latter says September 28), but does them all listing 2018 as the original release date properly source this? --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- The year only is fine. However, you have rowspanned the 3 labels but the Amazon sources do not support that. Amazon.com and .de give Def Jam, .co.uk gives Virgin, .au gives GOOD Music.
- What should I do here, as the album was obviously release through GOOD Music and Def Jam Recordings on all of the ones that list either but some listed GOOD and others listed the distributor in Def Jam; maybe merge these ones into a various citation for the labels and add the UK one separately as Virgin?? Or do you have any other suggestions? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe just write "Various" in the cell. Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Heartfox But the label col still exists, so what I should I write in there? --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I changed to just 2018 since none of the Amazon sources give a specific date apart from the US and Australia ones (the latter says September 28), but does them all listing 2018 as the original release date properly source this? --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- fn 66a → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam
- fn 66b, fn 66c & 66d → source says 2018, doesn't specify September 28, 2018
- fn 66b → only Virgin is given, not GOOD, Wicked Awesome, or Def Jam
- fn 66c → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam
Formatting
fn 61 Consequence is unlinked, but it is linked in fn 73?
- Done, must have been the sources getting moved around or something like that which I got confused with. --K. Peake 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
fn 91, 93–95 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent?
- Done, the bot somehow missed this when archiving I believe. --K. Peake 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
More to come... Heartfox (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Cudi was featured on the tracks "Ghost Town", alongside PartyNextDoor and 070 Shake, and "No Mistakes", alongside Charlie Wilson and Caroline Shaw." → "appeared" may be a better wording as he does not seem to be credited as a featured artist, but "associated performer".
- Altered to "made appearances on" if this works? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That works. Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- There appears to be a pinky vinyl version missing from the release history section according to RecordStoreDay.
- Comment should I list this as being released by GOOD and Def Jam since the source mentions only the latter, but it is known that was the label used for distribution so maybe I can add GOOD Music without this mentioning it due to WP:OVERCITE guidelines? --K. Peake 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Will do spotchecks again by Sunday. Heartfox (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Support from LOVI33
Definitely ready for FA in my opinion. The sources seem okay to use for me, the prose looks amazing and I don't see any MOS issues. Great job! LOVI33 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- LOVI33 Thanks a lot for your support; I am still having to fix sourcing at points since other editors have different standards! -- K. Peake 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from isento
I recommend replacing "rappers/producers" with "rapper-producers", since the single "s" at the end plurlizes the compound construction as a whole, while the dash serves the same function as what the slash is meant to but without the possibility of meaning "either/or". isento (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done. -- K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I recommend condensing the lead's discussion of the duo's pre-history and being more specific to engage readers about the story, since the background section paints some nasty emotions between the two. Something like, "West and Cudi had collaborated on each other's solo recordings since 2008, but experienced personal quarrels stemming from creative tension as well as mental health issues prior to Kids See Ghosts. After reconciling in 2016, West and Cudi recorded the album at the former's ranch in Jackson Hole, in sessions that also produced West's 2018 album Ye ..." The next paragraph reads a bit monotonously, listing names and credits off without much insight into the recording process. I recommend revising it with details from the music and production section. isento (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Isento I have rewritten the lead similarly to what you said but did not mention Ye or the Jackson Hole sessions in the first para, as that info is provided properly in the second one plus the 2016 recording was before the Wyoming Sessions started. Also, I've given more details from the musical section but does the loosely styled part read fine, or should I reword to something else? Thank you for the comments. -- K. Peake 06:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looks better! I'll revisit the article later with some more reviewing, but given the above reviews, I'm leaning toward support... isento ( talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I replaced "loosely styled" with "fragmented" on my own behalf since that flows better, thought I await any more comments and the hardest part has been sources, but I've finally fixed all bad ones today! -- K. Peake 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
In "background and recording," mention their mental illness in the paragraph leading up to the recording, since it has more connection as background to the two artists. And rearrange the Pusha T album detail somewhere else, since the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the paragraph's main idea(s). isento (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I did my best to address that concern above myself, but feel free to copy-edit yourself as well... I would also ask that you check each paragraph for repetitions of years in the month-day-year dates. It is only necessary to mention the year the first time in a paragraph if subsequent dates in the same paragraph are from the same year. isento (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Willie Mays
- Nominator(s): Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Willie Mays, one of the greatest and most famous Major League Baseball players of all time. Last time this was up as a featured article candidate, it was suggested that the prose needed more work. Since then, I have had this article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors.
In reviewing this, be sure to see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willie Mays/archive1. That review will contain helpful information, as an image and source check were done in the last one. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- My comments at the peer review weren't addressed.
some sections such as "Most Valuable Player, World Series champion (1954–1957)" and "Move to San Francisco, 1962 pennant race (1958–1962)" are awfully long (and these titles look like they cover two separate topics). Trying to split sections every 3–4 paragraphs is ideal for readability, particularly for readers on mobile devices. Also, "Following the death of Tommy Lasorda on January 7, 2021, Mays became the oldest living Hall of Famer." is unsourced and looks like trivia.
"Oldest living Baseball hall of famer" is still in the article and still unsourced. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)- Oppose 1c, 2b based on the points noted above, which have yet to be addressed (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accessibility – the infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
HF
I will review this nomination, but I have become busier in RL at the moment. Will try to start within the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
2009 Football League Two play-off Final
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Having successfully promoted the article on the first play-off final won by the team I support, I now present the second (and, to date, most recent). Once again, despite it involving my team, I feel I have managed to write the article in a neutral fashion and without excessive jargon. I eagerly await feedback, which will be actioned as soon as humanly possible. Fun fact: at this particular play-off final, the dignitary who had the job of presenting the trophy to the victorious captain at the end was someone who had been in my class at school....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - just a quick note to say that I will now be off-WP till Tuesday evening. If there's any fresh comments in that time, I will pick them up on my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments
- ".... the semi-finals; the semi-final between ..." repetitive.
- "as the scores finished level" ah, over two legs, on aggregate and after extra time??
- Link ref in the lead.
- "until the last minute. In the 90th minute" kind of saying the same thing...
- "would spend only" why not "only spent"?
- "would spend three" similar...
- "In the 2008–09 Football League season, the teams finishing..." I know the league table is there, but I usually give a passing mention to the promoted clubs and the distance behind the two play-off finalists ended, to put some context sometimes into how far off automatic they were but yet still had a chance/got promoted.
- "in fifth place in... two places..." could switch one of these for "position"?
- "The "Shrews" had" dislike nicknames, especially if not adequately introduced.
- Link "lobbed".
- Link cross.
- Link foul.
- Extra time, sending off?
- 1996 Football League Trophy Final has an article.
- "Shortly before kick-off" the kick-off of the final, not the preceding match you just described which was a regular league game.
- Odds can be linked to fixed-odds betting.
- "final who had" parses badly, it should be "same as" somehow, not "same who"
- "Stimson opted not to make any changes to his starting XI and Miller was named" you already said he made no changes, so maybe jusut cut to "Stimson named him as a sub" or similar.
- 2005 FA Trophy Final doesn't have an article but it should, so I would link it.
- Link "sent off".
- "Shrewsbury kicked off the match" what time?
- ""looked unsettled" according to whom?
- Link penalty area.
- Link header.
- "the key men " bit POV.
- "the 15-minute mark ... the 15-minute mark" repeat.
- "first serious goalscoring" bit POV.
- "to receive attention"" perhaps be clear it was medical attention.
- "Following the foul on Chadwick..." feels odd to have the sentence before this one interjected between the natural chronological flow.
- "defeated, BBC Sport's interactive" overlinked.
- Ref 15 scoreline needs en-dash.
- Ref 16, needs pp. for multiple pages.
- Curiously the match isn't linked to in the "2008–09 in English football" template so that shouldn't be there (or the play-off finals should be added to the template!)
That's all I have on my first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:All done I think, apart from the one about ref 16, which I don't understand because it doesn't list multiple pages...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Quite right, it doesn't. Odd coincidental line break! I'll re-check over the weekend. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
Having reviewed the other Gillingham play-off final, it seems inevitable I end up having a look at this one too. Not too much to say actually, the article looks in good shape. Just these comments:
- was philosophical about the fact --> not sure this is the right tone for an encyclopedia
- The teams finishing between fourth and seventh inclusive competed in the play-offs for the fourth and final promotion place. Brentford, Exeter City and Wycombe Wanderers were promoted automatically. --> might be just a personal style preference, but I would swap the order of these 2 sentences. And perhaps say something like "Champions Brentford". Just something to at least consider.
- Shrewsbury Town finished two places and six points lower. --> I'm not sure a team can finish 6 points lower.
- in which BBC Sport commented --> to my foreign eyes that "in" looks a bit odd. It's probably ok, but just checking
- Shrewsbury's Chris Humphrey (pictured in 2016) --> link Chris Humphrey
- Shrewsbury had previously played at the new Wembley in the 2007 League Two play-off final --> should that not be a capital F in final? I never quite understood why all the article titles of play-off finals have a capital F for Final, but okay, they all seem to have it, I suspect because they are proper names for events. But then I think we should be consistent and have an F here too. Not sure if the same rule applies a bit further on, where it reads "higher than the 35,715 registered at the previous year's League Two play-off final". That one doesn't look like a proper name to me, so maybe the f is fine here, but I'm just guessing now.
- leading scorer among all League Two players with 20 goals in the league --> I had to read this twice to figure out what is going on. Would be good to try and get the number 28 in first, so that it contrasts better with Jackson's 20
- and 7 in the Football League Trophy --> link Football League Trophy
- Defender Graham Coughlan played a prominent role for his team in the first half. --> add for which team he played
- Simeon Jackson scored the only goal of the game --> add Gillingham's
- ref #48 (The Independent). Why is London here? The other newspapers don't seem to get a location.
That's all I could find. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: - all done I think apart from the first one, as I'm struggling to think of an alternative. Wondering if you had any suggestions.....? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Giovanni Antonio Grassi
- Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Unlike many of the other articles about Jesuits I've nominated here, this Jesuit had a very active life in Europe, not just in the United States. He was an astronomer turned missionary turned educator turned royal advisor. I've developed this article substantially and think that it is up to FA standards. Ergo Sum 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from SportsLover 31
I like this article a lot.Has a lot of references ,good text ,sources written clearly,reasons explained well. These are the reasons why I like the article for a Featured Article.
Explanation
- Quality
The Quality of this works is very good .The images line with the text given,the text relates to the sources given and the sources are also a good informative reference for information.
- Sources
The sources are well mentioned and have the pg.no ,author and the publisher listed properly are correct in the sense of a reader.The sources have also been read .These a re a reliable source for an FAR.
Thank You SportsLover31 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, SportsLover31. Ergo Sum 14:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Johannes Schade
My opinions given here should not be overrated as I lack many of the qualifications usually expected from wikipedians engaged in FAC discussions. :-)
I feel the article tends towards overlinking (MOS:OL). Some of the writing is not Plain English. Sometimes, linked names are dropped without introduction and with insufficient context.
- Removed some of the clustered blue links and added explanatory tidbits here and there. Ergo Sum 04:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead is a bit long. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 2 to 3 paragraphs for the article's text length (15 kB), not 4. On the other hand, the body could perhaps be extended to cover the subject better.
- I've trimmed the lede. Ergo Sum 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1st paragraph. If a mentioned place is immediately followed by a wider localisation, then IMHO the wider localisation should not be linked as this comes near MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It is therefore proposed to unlink Washington D.C. and Rome. —The short Propaganda Fide is easier for the reader than the full Latin name, which I believe to be too cumbersome to use in the article. However, if deemed necessary, it should be given at the first occurrence in the text (or possibly the lead) with the short name between parentheses behind it.
- I don't generally subscribe to the rule of not linking place names following institutions located there, but in this case, I think the blue does run together, so I've unlinked it. I don't think the Propaganda Fide can be shortened because the Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples are not the same thing. The former is a college and the latter is a dicastery of the Roman Curia. Only the latter is commonly shortened to just "Propaganda Fide." Ergo Sum 20:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. The mention of Połock after two northern-Italian towns surprises. Perhaps add some brief explanation ("now in Belarus"?). One might also wonder whether Polotsk would not be more appropriate (or give both?). If I understand it right, Połock is the name in Polish, whereas Polotsk is the transliteration of the Russian and Belarusian name. Polotsk has the advantage of ensuring the right pronunciation of the second syllable. At the time Polotsk had just been acquired by the Russian Empire, but the school might have been teaching in Polish by tradition. —I think that "natural sciences", "mathematics", "astronomy", "rector", "Peking", "London", and "Lisbon" should not be linked in this context. —The geography in the last two sentences is confusing as Lisbon and London are mentioned, but then Coimbra, which is not in Lisbon, and Stonyhurst, which is not in London. Perhaps there is an occasion here to shorten the lead a bit.
- I've significantly reworked this part of the lede so that many of the more minor details are not mentioned. I've also added that the Polotsk college was in the Russian Empire, since that is not something that is common knowledge. While many European readers have no use of linking European cities, I think it's generally useful to link them for a global readership. I've removed some of the other links. I've also changed the spelling of Polotsk. Ergo Sum 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 4rd paragraph. Propaganda Fide as already been linked. The last sentence again gives the full Latin name. It might not be clear to all readers that these two are forms of the same name. (more to come) Johannes Schade (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how to make that clearer to readers since it just repeats the name. Ergo Sum 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The section Early life and education should perhaps be extended and clarified by additions.
- 1st paragraph. The first sentence is too short to describe the region of his origins. Schilpario is a village in the Alps of north-eastern Lombardy that in Grassi's time was part of the Venetian Republic. The Italian version of the article does this quite well: "Schilpario in provincia di Bergamo (allora parte della Repubblica di Venezia)". The reader might find that "Lombardy" and "Venetian" contradict each other as Schilpario in not in the modern Veneto. —Somaschi and seminary in Bergamo. As you give a location for the seminary the reader might wonder where the Somaschi school he attended was. I would think also in Bergamo. But your use of "going to" might be understood to mean that it was elsewhere. Perhaps: going to -> entering? or attending? —It would be helpful to indicate the year when the pope suppressed the Jesuit order.
- The source is not clear that it was actually a proper school, but rather that he studied under the Somaschi Fathers, so I can't give a location of where exactly it was. I'm a bit hesitant to go beyond simply the Venetian Republic because there's a whole article that explains it. Added the year of suppression. Ergo Sum 20:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. "Therefore" is difficult to understand. The reader might first need some background about the suppression of the order that allowed the exception of Russia. You give this later. Perhaps you could move it forward? —Simple vow. Is it really necessary to introduce here the distinction between the simple and the solemn vow? Most readers will never have heard of it. I feel it should be sufficient to say that he had to go to Polotsk for his further training. —Replace "With Polock becoming" -> "where Polotsk became". Besides, the article about Gabriel Gruber uses Polotsk (Russian) rather than Połock (Polish). —Unlink "natural sciences" and "rector".
- Moved up the explanation of Catherine the Great. While the distinction between simple and solemn vows is not huge in modern Catholic canon law, at this time, there was a big difference, so I think it's worth noting. Ergo Sum 20:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The section European voyage abounds in needless detail.
- 1st paragraph. Beak up the sea of blue (MOS:SEAOFBLUE): Jesuit Superior General, Gabriel Gruber, to St. Petersburg -> summoned to Saint Petersburg to see Gabriel Gruber, the Superior General. —Last sentence Peking by sea? Confusing as Peking is not a seaport. What is this "departing Russian delegation" Which are "those cities? I think we do not need to know about them. Hence: Gruber wanted Grassi and his two colleagues to sail to China rather than to travel overland (or something similar).
- Trimmed and unlinked. Ergo Sum 20:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. 1st sentence: "General" -> "Superior General" or "Jesuit General". General alone might be misleading. —"gifts to give to the people" -> "gifts for the people". —2nd sentence: unlink sled. Is it useful to mention the Swedish interpreter? —3rd sentence "They set out for London, where the Superior General arranged" -> "They planned to go to London where Gruber had arranged" —The sentence "Shortly after departing, three of the party fell ill, including Grassi, and they stopped for ten days at a small town on the Russian–Swedish border, where they were attended by a doctor." seems needless to me or could be shortened to "They were delayed by sickness". —"22 March" -> "22 March 1805". Dropping the year from dates looks sometimes elegant, but IMHO it should not be extended across paragraph boundaries as it becomes too difficult for the reader to establish which year it was when reading the paragraph on its own.
- Fixed date continuity. Trimmed.
- 3rd paragraph. The 1st sentence can be shortened to: "They eventually reached London on 25 May 1805." —2nd sentence Peking -> China. —3rd sentence "who unsuccessfully attempted to convince" -> "who however failed to convince".
- Done. Ergo Sum
- 4th paragraph. The sentence "Their journey was delayed when the captain stopped in Cork, Ireland;" can be omitted. —Unlink "astronomy". —They seem to have met Damoiseau in Lisbon where he taught them some astronomic calculations that they thought would be useful when in China to correct the Chinese calendar. Give more detail to make this understandable.
- I don't see this in the source. Can you point me to a page number that mentions this? Unlinked astronomy. Ergo Sum 21:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 5th paragraph. Nothing to report.
The heading of the section American missionary is perhaps misleading. Grassi did not go West to christen the Indians. He mostly was a teacher at an established school and a priest serving established Catholic parishes. The word "missionary" probably refers to the Maryland Mission, a Jesuit administrative subdivision, which became the Maryland province in 1833. The heading should be shortened to "American mission", or even to just "America".
- You may underestimate just how "missionary" Maryland was at the time in the eyes of the church, especially rural Maryland, which is where most of the Maryland mission's institutions were located. The Maryland Mission was classified as such (rather than as a province) by the Jesuit order because it was located in a place where church was not yet very established. The Jesuits sent missionaries all over: China, Siberia, South America. There's nothing unique to the Indian missions that makes them missions. Ergo Sum 21:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. The reader might be surprised by the change in name from Gruber to Brzozowski. I propose "In 1810, Tadeusz Brzozowski, who had succeeded Gruber in 1805 as Superior General, ..."
- Good catch. I've clarified the succession. Ergo Sum 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. 1st Sentence: "became naturalized" -> "would become naturalized" using future-in-the-past tense to stress that it would happen much later than where the main flow of the narration is now. —2nd sentence: introduce Francis Neale already here as the rector of the school. —Spanish: unlink. How could he teach Spanish? At that stage he probably could speak Italian, Latin, Polish or Russian (or both?), Portuguese and English but not Spanish.
- Done (rephrasing). I'm not sure when he learned Spanish, but the source says he was able to teach it by that point. Ergo Sum 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The section Presidency of Georgetown College
- 1st paragraph. 1st sentence. Mention that Charles Neale was brother of Frances Neale. Helps the reader not to confuse them. —Final vows. The link refers to the article Religious vows, which says, under Catholic, that Jesuits' first vows are perpetual. I am confused. Perhaps some additional explanation is needed. —Correct typo: Caroll -> Carroll.
- Fixed typo. Clarified relationship. I'm not an expert on the minutiae of vows under canon law; the get very complicated very quickly. I know there is a difference between first and final vows in the Jesuit order (see here), but I will leave it to an inquisitive reader to research that outside the corners of this article. Ergo Sum 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. Faculty: perhaps link to Wiktionary: this American English sense was unknown to me. Unlink "algebra", "mensuration", and "arithmetic".
- Unlinked all except mensuration, because I've never heard that word and would be surprised if its meaning is common knowledge today. Ergo Sum 21:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3rd paragraph. Nothing to report.
- 4rd paragraph. Replace: Leonard Neale -> Archbishop Leonard Neale, another of the Neale brothers. —Proposed: "Following the papal restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814," -> "After the pope had restored the Society of Jesus in 1814," (less static)
- Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 5th paragraph. 1st sentence: we seem here to jump backward to the time when Carrol was archbishop. We just learned Leonard Neale had succeeded him in the role. Probably move that sentence up. —"an increase in both the religious and ethnic the diversity of students" -> "an increase in the religious and ethnic diversity of students" —Proposed: "and he was succeeded" -> "when he was succeeded".
- The fifth paragraph is not part of the temporal sequence but is instead a conclusion of the section, giving an overview of his presidency. I think to break it up and intersperse throughout the section would be more confusing to the reader. Rephrased per suggestions. Ergo Sum 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The heading of the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide should perhaps better read "Mission to Propaganda Fide in Rome" (or similar). The section is supposed to explain Grassi's mission to Propaganda Fide, but is difficult to understand and involves Charleston, South Carolina, and White Marsh, Maryland and some punished priests, in mysterious ways.
- My concern with "mission" is that in the technical canonical sense, it wasa not a mission. I've trimmed some of the extraneous detail about White Marsh so that it keeps to the point of the section better. Ergo Sum 04:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1st paragraph. 1st sentence: replace "tasked Grassi with going to" -> "sent Grassi to" (be concise). —The reference to "White Marsh" is not understandable at all. What happened there? The linked to article White Marsh, Maryland describes a place in Baltimore County, Maryland and says nothing about Catholics and Jesuits there. I hope that is at least the right place. —The entry in the "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani" talks about the "scisma di Charleston". This schism is also mentioned in the article on Leonard Neale. Should be extended and reformulated to makes his mission understandable to the ordinary reader without going into undue detail.
- As the Leonard Neale article explains, it was a rather complicated and tedious affair. I've removed mention of it altogether because it's not terribly relevant to Grassi except to say that Neale had removed the priests. I also caught a silly typo. The controversy was in Charleston, South Carolina, not Charlestown, Maryland. I might look into writing an article about the schism to have a place that both articles can link to. Ergo Sum 21:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. "ecclesiastical superiors" -> "church leaders" in the interest of plain English. —"While in Rome, he also successfully argued before the Propaganda Fide for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England." -> "While in Rome, he skilfully pleaded for the full canonical restoration of the Jesuit order in England at the Propaganda Fide and appeared to have obtained it for a moment but new obstacles were later raised by the English Vicars Apostolic." (or something similar).
- Rephrased. Ergo Sum 21:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The section Confessor and provincial superior mentions a profusion of offices and responsibilities given to him. He probably quit some of them before taking up the next duty which sometimes seems not to have been mentioned. The timeline is sometimes difficult to follow. Perhaps not all these offices were essential. Perhaps some were honorific only?
- Yes, the timeline is a bit tricky. The sources are not great about supplying dates for the offices he held in Italy, and they rarely mention when he left an office. I've tried to organize them as clearly as I can, such as indicating when he left a certain city (and hence relinquishing an office he held there). None were honorific, as far as I can tell. Ergo Sum 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1st paragraph. The first sentence is long and difficult to understand and does not work well as an introduction to the subject of "Confessor and provincial superior" indicated by the heading. It might be better to split it. The 1st part might be: "Grassi became the procurator of the Jesuit province of Italy." However, it still would need to be explained what his responsibilities were. The link to the article for Procurator does not seem to be very helpful in the given context. The second sentence might be "He also was appointed 'socius' (assistant) to the Provincial Superior of Italy." —"who Grassi had assisted" -> "whom Grassi had assisted", besides, what does this mean? What influence had Grassi on the succession to the throne? Seems to need some explanation.
- I've added an explanation of what a procurator is and rephrase the sentence so that the punctuation breaks it up a bit. Ergo Sum 03:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2nd paragraph. The first sentence is overloaded and should be split. Clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school. He seems to have been transferred from being rector of the "College of Nobles" (mentioned in the section's 1st paragraph) to being rector of the "College of the Holy Martyrs".
- It only expresses two ideas, so I've reworded slightly and added some punctuation. Ergo Sum 04:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3rd paragraph. "Recalled Grassi to Italy in 1835". He had not crossed any frontier by going from Turin to Chambéry. At the time Chambéry was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia just like Turin. Sardinia would cede its parts west of the Alps to France in 1858. —Again, full name of Propaganda Fide: not a good place for it. Keep with the short one. —Filiberto Avogadro di Collobiano, explain: "an Italian politician". —Pignatelli, the reader might have forgotten; remind the reader briefly: "his teacher at Colorno".
- Good catch. I've left it simply as " recalled Grassi." This is the first mention of the Propaganda Fide College (not to be confused with the congregation) in the body, so it only makes sense to use the full name. Added those brief explanatory details. Ergo Sum 04:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Johannes Schade (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. I am on vacation and will get to this as soon as possible. Ergo Sum 01:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Johannes Schade, for your very thorough comments. I've tried to address them all. There are a few instances in which I haven't adopted your suggestions and have provided some explanation. Ergo Sum 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Ergo sum. Thanks for pinging me. Not being a subject-matter expert, I had indeed confused the College (school, Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide) with the Congregation (organization, Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione). Thanks for taking my criticisms so graciously, for sifting the wheat from the chaff among them, and for sometimes going even beyond my suggestions in adding needed detail. I have reread the article and will soon start another traverse of comments below. Best regards Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Johannes Schade, for your very thorough comments. I've tried to address them all. There are a few instances in which I haven't adopted your suggestions and have provided some explanation. Ergo Sum 04:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Second traversal of the lead.
- 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence; proposed "appointed the rector" -> "appointed rector"; "Polotsk, located in the Russian" -> "Polotsk in the Russian". —2nd Sentence. I propose to reformulate entirely: "In 1805 he was selected to go to China as a missionary, but spent five years travelling through Europe without being able to secure a passage to the far-away country." (or similar). —3rd Sentence. The problem here is that he only studied at Coimbra, but studied and taught at Stonyhurst.
- 3rd Paragraph. Last sentence; add "(a school for missionaries)" after the "Fide", so that readers can avoid the mistake I made.
Second traversal of the the section Early life and education
- 1st Paragraph. —1st sentence. I would add "near Bergamo" after "Lombardy". I would also add "then" before "in the Republic of Venice". —2nd Sentence "going to" -> "entering". —Last sentence: add "near Parma" after Colorno. To Europeans Bergamo and Parma are known places but Schilpario and Colorno are not.
- 2nd Paragraph. —Penultimate sentence: "there" -> "in Polotsk", needed as the last place named was Colorno, but you mean Polotsk.
Second traversal of the the section European voyage
- 2nd Paragraph. —2nd Sentence "ultimately arrive in London" -> "go to London". —Last sentence "China, who failed" -> "China, failed" —Penultimate sentence: "ships that would take them to Peking" -> "ships that would take them to China" as Peking is not a port city.
- Last Paragraph. —3rd Sentence: "causing the it" -> "causing it".
Second traversal of the the section American missionary
- 1st paragraph. —Last sentence: "distrustful of the Jesuits" -> "wary of Jesuits".
- 2nd Paragraph. The paragraph is too short to appropriately narrate his arrival at the college, introduce Francis Neale and describe the problems Grassi finds there. I think Francis Neale must be introduced here and not later. Something like "Arriving at the college he met its president Francis Neale and joined its staff as a teacher. He soon found that the school was struggling. Enrollment had dropped and the college was running at a deficit. etc." See the article about Francis Neale. At that stage Neale was approaching his seventies, was overloaded with other duties in addition to the presidency of the school, and was often in conflict with Carroll, the archbishop. It seems also that he was a heavy-handed disciplinarian and not liked by the pupils. —Last sentence (gradus). This sentence stays unclear despite the explanatory footnote. Perhaps omit it.
Second traversal of the the section Presidency of Georgetown College
- 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Grassi was appointed the president" -> "Grassi was appointed president" (without the article).
Second traversal of the the section Representative to the Propaganda Fide
- 1st Paragraph. —1st Sentence. I would prefer to call him "Archbishop Neale" rather than "Leonard Neale".
Second traversal of the the section Provincial Superior and confessor
- 1st Paragraph. —4th sentence: "appointed the confessor" -> "appointed confessor".
- 2nd Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "which forced" -> "that had forced". —3rd Sentence: "the the" -> "the". —Last sentence. "eventually when" -> "eventually broken when".
- 3rd Paragraph. —1st sentence: clarify that the "College of the Holy Martyrs" was a school.
- 4th Paragraph. —1st Sentence: "Wanting him to choose a permanent residence, the Superior General recalled Grassi in 1835" is not clear did he call him back to Turin? The Italian does not seem clearer. Is there another source?
So far. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Inuit clothing
- Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Inuit skin clothing is a tremendously interesting topic that I wrote a whole article about out of spite because we didn't have one and I wanted to merge an orphaned stub to it. The more I said about it, the more I learned there was to say about it, and my research resulted in not only the comprehensive primary article, but two child articles as well (history of Inuit clothing and research on Inuit clothing). It's a shame it took us until 2020 to have an article on the topic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy I got to be the one to do it.
Throughout their entire history, the Inuit have been master survivors, and their skin clothing system is a living testament to that: research has found that the traditional clothing of the Inuit is warmer and more comfortable than modern military and expedition gear. In addition to being effective, Inuit clothing is an expression of identity, artistic technique, spirituality, and style. While full outfits of traditional skin clothing are no longer worn all the time, it would be a mistake to pin Inuit clothing to the past – the Inuit continue to integrate the patterns and styles of their traditional clothing with their modern lives today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
As noted bolded phrase in the lead should match the article title per MOS:BOLD. Otherwise there shouldn't be a bolded phrase. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review
- https://skinddragter.natmus.dk/ states that its photographs are "CC-BY-NC". That is NOT a compatible license, nor is it the same one you used when uploading these photographs to Commons. Unless the license was changed post-upload, all these photographs will have to be deleted from Commons. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you double check the samlinger.natmus.dk source links for all the photos, all are tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure why the front page of the Skin Clothing database would give contradictory information, but I believe it's not possible to un-license a photo once it's released under a more free license
- However, some of the photographs on https://samlinger.natmus.dk/ such as https://samlinger.natmus.dk/es/object/34959 are individually stated to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 which is OK, but does not match the license used on Commons, "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic". These need to match. Please be careful when uploading photos to get the licensing right!! (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no need for exclamation marks. When those photos were uploaded, the license on the source pages explicitly stated CC-BY-SA 2.0. They may have updated their licensing since then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I somewhat doubt this as 4.0 was being used before these uploads, according to Wayback Machine:[18][19][20][21] (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those archived links are from January this year. I started using the site in August last year (you can see this from my earliest skin clothing upload), at which time their licensing stated CC-BY-SA and linked to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Obviously they have updated their licensing since then. I had no reason to realize they had done so in the mean time - why would I, since the line describing the licensing still read CC-BY-SA as it always had? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Inuit-Kleidung 1.jpg File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg — why is the underlying clothing out of copyright?
- I have never heard of clothing having to be out of copyright before it can be photographed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Commons seems to indicate that freedom of panorama would cover it, clothing being a 3D work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- The underlying clothing also has copyright. Unless the clothing designer has relinquished their rights to it or it expired. FoP only applies to permanently located works such as buildings or statues. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- The helpful people in the Commons Discord pointed me to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, which has a section on clothing. Per that section, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable." It goes on to state that copyright of fashion exists in some countries, such as France, but as far as I can tell, Canada does not have such a provision (See for example [22]). Since both photos were taken in Canada, they are fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Two smiling Kauwerak Eskimo girls wearing print cotton parkas, Nome, Alaska, between 1903 and 1910 (AL+CA 6372).jpg — when was this first published?
- Before 1926, per the PD tag applied to it on the Commons page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source does not give a publication date, so you can't assume it was just because the tag has been applied to it. People often use Commons tags incorrectly. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per [23], the photographer, Beverly Bennett Dobbs, stopped working in still photography and had sold his negatives to the Lomen Brothers by about 1911, including that photo in particular. The Lomen Bros. got out of photography entirely after a fire destroyed their building in 1934; they never reopened. If Dobbs published it himself first before 1911, or if Lomen published it before 1926, it's expired, both under {{PD-US-expired}}. If Lomen for some reason hung on to it for fifteen years and published it sometime between 1926 and the 1934 destruction of their studio, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, because while the studio's name is on the photo, there is no explicit copyright notice on it. I find it exceedingly unlikely that they published it after they went out of business. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Camp at Tikkoot, Hudson Strait (69047).jpg How do I verify that this is available under the stated license? (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was uploaded by an employee the Canadian Museum of History working through GLAM; they're still an active uploader so if you have further questions I'm sure they could answer them. It was also created before 1949 so it hits {{PD-Canada}} even if it wasn't uploaded as CC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- The gallery. Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant. For example, if you feel you absolutely must have three images to illustrate caribou clothing, put a gallery of three images in that specific section. Also, I did not check these images for copyright status.[24] (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- You aren't obligated to like the gallery, but in my opinion it presents a selection of images that illustrate relevant and unique aspects of Inuit clothing that do not otherwise fit well in the text. WP:GALLERY does not forbid them in articles, nor does it state that they must be positioned in any specific place. The image of Niviatsinaq shows that beaded parkas have a long history, there is no other image of a Mother Hubbard parka where the subject isn't obscuring much of it, there are no photos of gloves in the text, the chewing to soften leather demonstrates the traditional clothing-making process, the Kalaaliit outfit illustrates the modern evolution of Greenlandic wear into the national costume (and the "skin embroidery" process mentioned in the article), and the image of kamiit with the tools demonstrate the specific process of boot-making. It's clear that the gallery serves the reader by providing a curated selection of images that are otherwise of interest to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment from the peanut gallery: I think the gallery adds value to this article and should be kept. This is a topic wherein visuals really help and freely licensed photography exists, so use it (if anything, increase the default size of the pictures in the gallery), and the gallery allows lots of relevant images to be included without creating sandwiching or overwhelming the text. Also, just stylistically, it's cleaner to have a single gallery at the end rather than multiple galleries, barring a truly gigantic amount of images in the gallery; not saying that the multiple gallery approach can't work, but it's a style preference at most. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not my opinion: MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are extrapolating MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which describes the most sensible place to put individual images, to apply to galleries. In fact, that section goes on to state that if that's not possible, only to avoid placing images too early in the text. It gives no direction about galleries. Neither WP:GALLERY nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout specify where galleries should be located, but most general galleries are placed at the bottom of articles by custom, such as at dress, wedding dress, Lolita fashion, or oil painting. I see no reason that this gallery should be any different - as SnowFire says, it's cleaner to have one gallery than a bunch of tiny ones cluttering up the main text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, and just making "policy" up, and not for the first time. Perhaps unfortunately, WP:GALLERY doesn't reflect the existence of "mini-galleries" at all, mainly because they had not been "invented" when it was written - everybody using galleries did what you have done and put a single gallery at the end of the article. Just ignore. The pictures are of course absolutely vital for this, like any costume article, and very good. I'd only say the gallery size could be upped a bit. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Johnbod, I appreciate your input. I've never actually used the image size parameters for galleries before - should I use both the height and width parameters, or only one? And how big do you recommend? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mostly use something like
, then maybe fiddle with the settings as appropriate. You have a mix of "portrait" and "landscape" images; you could split them into 2 consecutive galleries, or use the landscape ones in the text somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mostly use something like
- Oppose 1f and 3. I'm concerned that the image licensing is not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy in all cases and that images are being used without demonstrated encyclopedic relevance and connection to the article text. As stated in WP:IMGCONTENT, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." With each image I should be able to connect it to some aspect discussed in the article. A curated image gallery that's not directly connected to the text can be moved to Commons and linked as an external link. I don't appreciate being accused of "making policy up" when WP:image use policy actually says, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe, can you clarify as to which images you feel are out of compliance with copyright policy? I replied with clear explanations to all of your objections above over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have received no replies from you since then, so if you had any further concerns, it has been impossible for me to know what they are as you have not articulated them. It also feels distinctly unfair to have an opposition based on wording in a comment that someone else made - I did not ever say you were making anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sorry if my remarks (not solely based on this nom) caused this, and I don't want to make things worse, but Buidhe, perhaps you could give the policy support for your statements above:
- "Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant."
- "If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all."
- You might also comment on how "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader" (from MOS:IMAGELOCATION) ends up as "MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all".
Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility review
- I would suggest adding alt text to at least the map image, as the caption doesn't make it clear how the distribution of groups is being presented (e.g., a map, graph, chart, etc.)
- I went with "Map of the North American Arctic with colored zones to indicate the primary Inuit language or dialect spoken within the area" - does that suit? And are there any other images you would recommend an alt for? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- According to WebAIM, "Every image must have an alt attribute". (This is because every image in a Wikipedia article links to another URL. According to WebAIM, "An image that is the only thing inside a link must never have a missing or empty alt attribute"). This is why if the alt text would mostly repeat a caption, I would recommend just doing alt=refer to caption. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Add row scopes, column scopes, and row headers to the "Main components of traditional outfit" table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- How's that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Source thoughts
- Why is Bird 2002 a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published report that was submitted to the UN
- I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
- I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to be argumentative, but this is a source I'm willing to quibble over (not least because it's used in History of Inuit clothing more substantially, and I plan to take that to FA eventually as well). I believe the report meets our "acceptable use of self-published works" criteria. Pauktuutit as an organization is a subject-matter expert on the question of Inuit women's issues, having studied and published on the topic since the 1980s. Their work in the area of Inuit clothing/IP protection and the report itself specifically have been cited in other reliable works, ([25], [26], [27] for a couple of examples) and the report was cited as a document for discussion at a World Intellectual Property Office invitational workshop in 2019 ([28]); all of which indicates to me that it is considered a reliable source by experts, and so should be by us as well.
- I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
- McCord Museum should be linked on first use
- It is, see the source that starts with "Kobayashi Issenman, Betty; Rankin, Catherine (1988b)."
- Why is Pauktuutit: Inuit Women of Canada a reliable publisher?
- See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
- Not much turns on it, so it stands under its own weight --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
- Why is Inuktut Tusaalanga a reliable publisher?
- Published by Pirurvik, an Inuit educational centre that publishes Inuktut-language educational material. The Inuktut Tusaalanga site in particular has been given an award by the Canadian government ([29]) and is supported by the government of Nunavut (the polar bear "Nunavut" logo at the bottom of the page is a government icon - see here for confirmation).
- Why is UpHere a reliable source?
- Up Here is an established magazine with a reputation for quality, having won several journalistic awards over its 35+ year history. They accept outside pitches but not user-generated content, all stories are bylined, and the contact info for their editorial department is transparent and available. They include corrections when they make errors. The author of that particular article, Kassina Ryder, is as far as I can tell an experienced journalist in covering northern culture.
- The way chapters from books is organized is strange, but I like it
- I figured better to go alphabetical on the chapters since the names are the primary means of identification in the citations. Glad you like it :)
No spotchecks were done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 03:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments! Hopefully that's sufficient to address any concerns. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Martin Rundkvist
- Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC); Chiswick Chap (talk)
Martin Rundkvist has excavated a Viking boat grave, a sixteenth-century sword, and, last summer, a mead hall from the time of Beowulf, where he discovered nearly two dozen gold figures. And then there were the times he won six games on Jeopardy!, and spent a week at the helm of Sweden's official Twitter account, @sweden. Cool stuff.
This article, too, has an interesting history. It lasted for less than a month when it was created in 2008; within days of its recreation in 2020 it was brought back to the gents at AfD, where it again failed their discerning gaze. This year, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, incorporating dozens of new sources and soliciting the input of half a dozen users with experience in this space, including Midnightblueowl, Johnbod, KJP1, The Rambling Man, and Amitchell125, even before MeegsC gave it a thorough good-article review. The benefit of this process is that the article is in pretty much the best shape it could possibly be in; it is therefore featured-article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Hurricane Noah
Scandinavian élite
I don't believe an accent is needed here. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep this one. The relevant guideline, for its part, says that "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". And the OED lists both forms.
- Link the first mention of Stockholm in the prose.
- Done.
- Link to amber since not everyone may know it is fossilized tree resin. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done.
- Link brooch. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done.
four of its 25 castles
Numbers shouldn't variate between numerical and word form in the same sentence. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done, per comparable values guidance.
Well done. I only found some minor issues with the article. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hurricane Noah, I appreciate the review. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I support this nomination now. NoahTalk 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Spicy
(Not an image review). I have concerns over the licensing of the lead image. This was uploaded to Commons with the source listed as 'Directly from photographer' and the author listed as 'Kristina Ekero Eriksson'. The uploader doesn't seem to be the same person as Erikson, so this would require an OTRS release from the copyright holder. Spicy (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Resolved, permission has been received. Spicy ( talk) 18:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Aza24
How fascinating! Looking through now. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Lead
- Hmm, may be picky (and perhaps incorrect) of me, but "He is particularly known for research into the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and for significant excavations in the province of Östergötland" doesn't sound right. These are obviously huge spans of time and seem like a fairly large topic to be "particularly known for". My initial reaction is that people are particularly known for more specific things, such as "He specializes in medieval music and is particularly known for his work on Guillaume de Machaut—am I making any sense here? Maybe rephrase to "his research focuses on/lies in", "he studies" or something...
- Yes, I agree that could be worded better. It now reads: "His research focuses on the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages of Scandinavia, and includes significant excavations in the province of Östergötland." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "research into" seems a bit vague, is there a qualifier for what kind of research we're talking about here? Archaeology seems like a broad subject for such a statement
- Addressed with the above rewording. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a name for this group of people Rundkvist is discovering all these things on?—or are they merely the inhabitants of said areas?
- The inhabitants; groups were often small in those times, and there were many different ones over the centuries of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- It feels a little odd to exclude almost all the universities he has been associated with in the lead
- Added a new sentence to the third paragraph of the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Early life and education
- I presume nothing is recorded on his parents or secondary schooling?
- Not that I recall seeing, and certainly, not in a secondary source. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "has lived entirely in Stockholm", just to check, though a researcher at Exeter and Chester for ~10 years, he still lived in Stockholm?
- Yep. See the paragraph beginning with "My main task" at the good-article review. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Career
- "In January 2020"—would be nice to avoid the two sentences in a row that begin with "In"
- Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Bronze buckle is a nice picture, but confusing and out of place as there's no explanation for why it's there, what it is, or indeed anything about Barshalder until a later section. You may want to add to the caption, text or perhaps move it downwards
- Good point. Mentioned that it was one of Rundkvist's excavations in the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Any date for the pic of Rundkvist?
- 2007, added. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Planning to look at Research and the rest of the article tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Research
- Completely up to you, but it's been a while since Williams was mentioned, so I almost wonder if his full name should be used here again for his first mention (though me forgetting who he was could have easily been the result of returning to this article they next day). By no means necessary though
- I think using just the last name suggests that he was mentioned previously—and that someone trying to figure out who he is should look above—whereas a full name might suggest that he was not mentioned. So if anything, a second link is probably the way to go rather than a full name. I'm happy either way. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair point, should be fine how it is then
- "Reported as far away as India" seems a bit odd, I mean, India has a huge media system and probably reports on a ton of archeological subjects. And either way, it might be more meaningful to say something like "widely reported in the media"
- Reworded with your phrasing. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a wikitionary link for oblong? I had to look it up and I suspect others would have to as well
- Linked to rectangle, which discusses "oblong" (with a link to wiktionary) in the first paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Would a link to "Late antiquity" for the Late Roman Period make sense? Might be a stretch but am not sure
- I think that's probably a bit too broad, but Chiswick Chap, what do you think (or any other ideas for links)? We could perhaps link it as "Late Roman Period". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's marginal; either of those two would do at a stretch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Aska mead hall
- I feel a bit awkward to say I didn't know what "pendant" meant—so it could warrant linking—but this may just be me. As an aside, this seems like a broad category—is there a more specific characterization that could be used?
- Linked. I took a look, but couldn't find a more specific article. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the "stamped" either in this context. Does it literally have a stamp of somekind?
- Linked to Stamping (metalworking). Not a great article, but should get the point across. --Usernameunique (talk)
Other
- Well the "Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities" is dup linked, but the distance between is far enough that it could be warranted
- I don't think the duplicate linking was intentional, although I'm slightly inclined to keep the second, since arguably the link is more important there. But I could also be convinced to take it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to be retrieval dates missing from ref 6 and 7 of the Primary section
- These are archived URLs where the originals are dead. The "archived on" dates are thus the relevant ones: whatever day the archived URLs are accessed, they will still appear as the sources appeared on 11 February 2015 and 3 September 2014, respectively. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. My rationale was merely that other archived refs have retrieval dates, so I assumed this was an oversight
- Most of the URL-sourced references have archived URLs as backups; only primary refs 6 & 7, and secondary refs 5 & 10, have dead URLs, and rely on the archived URLs in the first instance. Those four are the ones that don't have retrieval dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- That seems to be it. First class work; looking forward to supporting. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review, Aza24. I think we've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I left one response about retrieval dates, but I'm fine with it either way. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Responded above. Thanks for the support, Aza24.
Placeholder from KJP1
Apologies, life is intruding, but shall certainly be back with comments, although probably not before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Older nominations
Zombie Nightmare
- Nominator(s): GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a voodoo priestess resurrecting a baseball player to get revenge on the people who ran him over. Set in Canada. Starring Adam West.
This Canadian jaunt is yet another article about a film that ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and personally surprised me with how much information I was able to find about this. But I am prepared for the criticism this nomination might bring. But I do think this has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 03:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done. GamerPro64 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from JM
This looks fun!
- "and was originally intended to be a black-centric film before changing the characters to have whiter names to appease investors" How about "The film was originally written to start mostly black actors [if that's what is being claimed] but, at the request of investors, the characters' names were changed to more typically white names, and white actors were hired." Or something. I find the current wording a bit off.
- Fair assessment. I'll use that instead. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- "mother Louise mourns for him" Do you mourn for someone, or just mourn them?
- I changed it to "mourns over him". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is Blood Sisters worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks! (Ditto the bands mentioned in the soundtrack section.)
- Not really on the movie. But the bands I can wiki-link.
- "for eating all the craft services" What does this mean?
- It means he ate all the food meant for the cast and crew. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm getting a few hits on Google Books/Google Scholar, but nothing (I don't think) that absolutely has to go in. And nothing of any interest showing up on Netflix. Maybe there'd be more sources buried deep in forgotten magazines, but I don't know how much there is written about this one!
- J Milburn replied to your comments. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Andrzejbanas
- "Zombie Nightmare was a commercial success despite negative reviews". Probably shouldn't say "despite" here, as that implies that the financial success of the film defies any negative critical reaction. I may note too that despite comparisons between budget and gross, we don't have any statment that says it was a financial success as budget may be the cost of the film, it does not take into consideration how much other factors of it may have caused. So you might just want to state something a bit more specific and less interpretive like "The film grossed a total of ____ againa a ____ budget" and let users piece what that means themselves.
- Changed.
- Similar to the above, where its stated "Wrestler Superstar Billy Graham was originally cast to play Tony's father. However, on the day he arrived in Montreal, no one came to pick him up at the airport and Graham left after waiting ten hours. Fasano took up the role." You can probably drop the "However" as its a bit jarring to read a statement, assume its true then read a "however" which sort of puts into the readers mind what's happening was not true at all.
- Removed the "However". GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The music section in the article is so small that I would not give it its own headline.
- Ok removed section. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Deep Red Magazine link goes to FantaCo Enterprises, but there is no information on the magazine here, so i would remove the link.
- Removed. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd try to split the contemporary reviews between the retrospective ones (i.e: the initial release give or take a year over the retrospective ones). Otherwise its not clear how the film was received on its release compared to later reception.
- Moved things around. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Kerrang" article doesn't state "Best" it just says "13 Kickass Horror Soundtracks To Amplify Your Halloween". Kerrang! is an ok source for things but this is a cheap listicle that doesn't really provide much critical commentary and just sort of arbitrarily lists halloween playlists for people. It might be better to get the more critical meat of the article like how it says the soundtrack is better than the film itself.
- Reworked. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The DVDTalk article does not state that the DVD was released in 2010, that's just when the review is posted.
- Added source from AllMovie. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- A brief description of what the Turkey Day marathon would be helpful otherwise i don't know what the film screening on that session has in any context.
- Just mentioned that its an MST3K marathon. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Bloody Digusting film should specify the genre your mentioning (i.e: it's talking about rock-music themed horror films, not just zombie films as the identified genre in the lead.
- Specified. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
That's all for now! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Andrzejbanas replied to your comments. GamerPro64 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Andrzejbanas, do you feel able to support or oppose this nomination? Or do you have further comments to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey hey, sorry for the slow response.
- The lead should cover some information about the production. I know there isn't much, but even the basics on how it was filmed in Canada, some casting, etc. Whatever you feel is important as the lead should cover the major parts of the article, and one of the major parts is the production.
- You can remove the red links to bands that probably will not be getting any wiki articles any time soon.
- This will probably sound picky, but my own pet peeve is assuming an all encompassing reception to a film from the few we've gathered. There is no ratio that collects whether it was recieved poorly or not (i.e: no metacritic / rotten tomatoes or historian covering these bits and pieces). So I don't really like say things like "The film received negative reviews from contemporary and retrospective yadda yadda yadda". I'd remove it unless you have a source with suggests the general reception. (For the record, I don't doubt it recieved bad reviews, but we should have something that backs up that statement other than our own original research).
- The part of the Voodoo in Film book probably should focus on the criticism of the film rather than how it uses voodoo in context as that seems to be a pretty minor element that's not really expanded on here.
- Other than that, I don't have much more to add. once these things are addressed i can look it over one more time. Otherwise, i'd say it's good. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Jamiroquai
- Nominator(s): 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. Submitting again due to lack of feedback. 웃OO 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would use an image in "Stage and visuals" section. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, though I'd rather this [30] be the infobox pic and this [31] as the stage and visuals pic to vary the timelines and his headgear. 웃 OO 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Any shot that emphasizes the headgear may no longer be de minimis ( see here) and you have to worry about copyright issues. ( t · c) buidhe 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the headgear doesn't have to be necessary, I still would like for the infobox to give a clear shot of the frontman at least. 웃 OO 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-15 (27352016619).jpg or File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-21 (25262574408).jpg as the infobox image? ( t · c) buidhe 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe, I actually decided to change your first choice to this 2018 photo [32], which served as the infobox pic before. You can revert if you're not satisfied. 웃 OO 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-15 (27352016619).jpg or File:Jamiroquai - The O2 - Sunday 3rd December 2017 JamiroquaiO2031217-21 (25262574408).jpg as the infobox image? ( t · c) buidhe 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the headgear doesn't have to be necessary, I still would like for the infobox to give a clear shot of the frontman at least. 웃 OO 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Any shot that emphasizes the headgear may no longer be de minimis ( see here) and you have to worry about copyright issues. ( t · c) buidhe 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, though I'd rather this [30] be the infobox pic and this [31] as the stage and visuals pic to vary the timelines and his headgear. 웃 OO 13:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Hurricane Noah
Hello, I have a few comments for you below to improve your article. I am not an expert on music articles, but I will give it a whirl. I have a nomination up currently and would appreciate it if you were able to review it. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
funk/jazz movement
Could you replace the slash with a word per MOS:SLASH? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)The band has sold more than 26 million albums worldwide as of 2017
Anything more up-to-date? NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success, and was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards, and the song earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998.
Run-on sentence. I suggest changing to: "The music video for its lead single, "Virtual Insanity", also contributed to the band's success. The song was named Video of the Year at the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards and earned the band a Grammy Award in 1998." NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)As a prominent component within the London-based funk/acid-jazz
Same thing here on the legacy section with the slash. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)They sold 4.4 million albums in the UK and had US sales of 2.5 million copies sold as of 2010
This seems really out of date since it was 11 years ago. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)- FN66: Just judging from the title, it appears to be in German, but the ref doesn't state this. NoahTalk 19:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)'
- Copyedited the article per these requests. There aren't any updates regarding the sales in 2017 nor the individual sales in 2010. 웃 OO 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I support this nomination. NoahTalk 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Copyedited the article per these requests. There aren't any updates regarding the sales in 2017 nor the individual sales in 2010. 웃 OO 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Steve Davis
- Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC), User:The Rambling Man
This article is about one of the most important snooker players of all time. Davis is a six-time world champion, and absolutely dominated the 1980s, winning 28 world ranking tournaments and a further 56 invitational devices. Three times a winner of the Masters, Davis was also a master of nine-ball, poker and chess during his professional career from 1976 to 2016. Gaining an MBE in 2000, Davis is also the only snooker player to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, and was part of the most viewed broadcast on BBC2 and post midnight at the 1985 World Snooker Championship.
I think the article is fantastic, so I would like your comments as to how this looks alongside my other nominator The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Buidhe. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
I may claim Wikicup points, if I consider my review substantial enough. Will probably add my comments in a few batches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
General
- No mention of Frank Callan?
- I have added a mention. I'm sure there's loads of sourcing about it, but other than him being the coach, there's not much to say. Happy to add a quote if Davis says something specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- In Pocket Money, Gordon Burn notes how Davis had never publicly mentioned Callan and how "Stalin-like, [Callan] has been written out of all the official Davis histories." Seems like Bill Davis and Callan clashed, but given how Griffiths, Hendry, Mountjoy and others have spoken about Callan, it seems very possible that Callan was important for Davis's development and success. He's mentioned now, so cool. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have added a mention. I'm sure there's loads of sourcing about it, but other than him being the coach, there's not much to say. Happy to add a quote if Davis says something specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s? I think these were pretty significant for the later development of snooker, and he was the headliner IIRC.
- Online mentions here, here (sub/reg needed), here and here (sub/reg needed). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements? The ratio of his other income to prize money appears in quite a few sources.
- Any examples? I feel it's a bit of a throwaway thing, other than his relationship with Hearn being monetary in nature, Davis isn't a businessman; and this is a bio about a snooker player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here are a couple. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "At 29, Davis is the game's first millionaire. … cued his way to 255,000 pounds sterling ($510,000 Cdn.) in tournament winnings last year, while endorsements and exhibitions boosted his income to about $1.5 million … Davis has a five-year, $1-million pound contract with a brewery that calls for him to devote 40 days a year on their behalf - at roughly $10,000 a day. His other endorsements include men's toiletries, luggage, watches and, of course, snooker equipment"[1]
- "his season's earnings in official prize money to a record$A1.06 million. And it is estimated that he earned the best part of another million in restricted tournaments, exhibitions, endorsements and sponsorships … By 1981, the year in which he won the championship for the first time, he was already a millionaire. It is accepted that he has earned a million pounds a year ever since."[2]
- "Courage’s original agreement to become patron to Davis made him the best-paid sportsman in Britain"[3]
- "Hearn and Davis need each other"; coverage of Hong Kong trip, and Riley and Goya deals.[4]
- and another: Dominic Sandbrook, Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. London: Allen Lane. 2019. ISBN 978-1-846-14737-1 p.492 : "[Davis] was not merely an exceptional sportsman but an exceptional business, cashing in on the transformtion in snooker's image ...[By 1985] he was raking in three times as much from endorsements, an estimated £600,000 a year, than he was from tournament prize money." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Any examples? I feel it's a bit of a throwaway thing, other than his relationship with Hearn being monetary in nature, Davis isn't a businessman; and this is a bio about a snooker player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- On my desktop view, the names of the tournaments in the performance and ranking timeline disappear when I scroll past a certain year, is there any way to make this a bit more reader-friendly?
- I think that's a Question for WT:SNOOKER. I don't like these tables particularly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Legacy section looks a little light, but let me have a look at sources to see if I have any more specific points/comments.
- I agree there's room for improvement. You've certainly added some good sources below that would benefit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't read it as it's paywalled, but this might be interesting. There's a Eurosport article that might be useful here. The last couple of pages of the Davis chapter of Masters of the Baize are on Google Books (on my view), as is some of Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (see the start of chapter 7, for example). I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree there's room for improvement. You've certainly added some good sources below that would benefit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
- Shouldn't info be cited in the body rather than in the infobox?
- WP:INFOBOXCITE suggests that citations shouldn't be in the infobox if there is a suitable way to convey the info in the prose. I'd argue with these nicknames they aren't really all that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOXCITE suggests that citations shouldn't be in the infobox if there is a suitable way to convey the info in the prose. I'd argue with these nicknames they aren't really all that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.
- "Golden nugget" is not sourced in the article, but does appear in two headlines of sources used.
- See top Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 147 as being his highest break isn't explicitly sourced, only that he compiled it...perhaps doesn't need to be as it's called a "maximum break" in the body and breaks over 147 are virtually unknown?
- Yeah, we clearly denote he's made maximum breaks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- We can also just use https://wst.tv/players/steve-davis/ as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, we clearly denote he's made maximum breaks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Total number of century breaks isn't sourced.
- Now in body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Lead
- "he remains the only snooker player ever to win the award." - not explicitly sourced in the article.
- cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Davis domination of the game waned in the 1990s" - Davis's?
- That's actually against the MOS, as far as I'm aware. The Rambling Man knows more on this iirc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, Benny's right, Davis's in this context. Although MOS advises the wording is changed to avoid such constructions if possible. In the good old days, it would have been "Davis'" but we're not allowed that any more it would seem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's actually against the MOS, as far as I'm aware. The Rambling Man knows more on this iirc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "at age 39" - "at the age of 39" seems better to me.
- Made some changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "He made a record 30th" - doesn't look like the "record" part is sourced in the article.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Should MBE be wikilinked?
- It is linked after the name in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order. I suppose it might be seen as overlinking. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is linked after the name in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Images
- "Davis playing a trick shot exhibition during the break of the 2012 German Masters final" - maybe something like "interval" rather than "break" (to avoid any possible confusion with break)?
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Early career
- "introduced him to snooker at age 12 took him to play at his local working men's club and gave him an instructional book" seems to be lacking some punctuation or words.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Pontin's Spring Open" is redlinked here; "Pontins Spring Open" (no apostrophe) is wikilinked in the Pro-am finals section.
- Interestingly, this was piped to Spring Open. I've also created a suitable redirect to Pontins Open#Pontins Spring Open Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
- "He made his debut at the World Snooker Championship in 1979, losing 11–13 to Dennis Taylor in the first round" - consider mentioning that he won two qualifying matches to get there.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Professional success (1980-1984)
- "defeating defending champion Terry Griffiths in the second round" merits a little more detail, I think.
- reworded. I don't want to give it too much weight though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Over the next 18 months, Davis won seven more events" - not verified by source, as far as I can see. (Seems that after the 1980 UK, he won the the English Professional, the Yamaha Masters, the 1981 World Championship and "The following season he won seven more titles" which would probably be ten in 18 months - I've not checked all the dates.)
- I've removed and just said facts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Davis followed up this with a 9–0 whitewash victory over Dennis Taylor in the International Open final" - sort of, but I think he lost to Griffiths in the Pontins Pro Championship and also won the Lang's Scottish Masters inbetween the world championship and the International Open (if Hayton has the sequence right).
- I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "This began a six-month period in which Davis and Griffiths contested almost all the major tournament finals." - source?
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In doing so, Davis won a Lada car" - possibly worth mentioning that Lada were the sponsors of the tournament. Also, it feels like that belongs with the previous sentence rather than with "but lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final"
- Good point Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "defeating Griffiths 9–6 in the final." - the source (and Hayton) say 9–5.
- Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "falling to the Crucible curse" - I suppose a little poetic licence is allowed even in featured articles.
- I mean, we have a full on article on it, seems fair game to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he was the first player to retain his title at the Crucible Theatre – the venue for the event " - may be worth adding since when it was the venue.
- Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- How about adding when he first achieved the number one ranking?
- Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Feels like this section is slightly out of balance with the Retirement (2010–2016) section, which looks like it has a higher proportion of match scores but for matches which are IMO less significant in his career. (e.g. "He qualified for the Shanghai Masters by defeating Alfie Burden 5–1 and Andrew Higginson 5–0, defeating Zhu Yinghui 5–1 to reach the last 32[116] before losing 4–5 to Ricky Walden" v "Davis reached the final by defeating White in the first round, Higgins in the second round, Griffiths in the quarter-finals and defending champion Cliff Thorburn in the semi-final." and "Davis also won the 1984 UK Championship, defeating Higgins 16–8 in the final".)
- This has been addressed per the below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
1985 World Snooker Championship
- "lost only 23 frames en route to the final" - might be useful to add how many he won, to put the 23 in context.
- I've added who he beat instead, which is much more relevant. 23 isn't a low amount of frames to conceed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Later world championship victories (1985–1989)
- "The result did not affect his position at the top of the world rankings, since he had won the UK Championship, the Grand Prix and the British Open in the 1985–86 season.2 is not sourced.
- Yeah, suprised I didn't mention the win better. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "By the end of the 1980s, Davis was snooker's first millionaire" - fair interpretation of the source. The Evening Standard for 7 April 1983 says Davis was a millionaire, and there was a March 1985 edition of Sportsnight that said the same, so the current wording is supported but he was probably a millionaire earlier than it implies.
- Yeah, not much more we can do than say this, unless there's a specific source that says when this was. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
1990–2005
- "His last victory in a major tournament was at the 1997 Masters." - source? (BBC source after the next sentence mentions it, but not that it was his "last")
- We do say his last ranking title was in 1995, source added that specifically says this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "After a season in which he reached only one ranking event quarter-final" - source?
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
In other media
- I'd suggest wikilinking or explaining " sixth form"
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Combine the two mentions of Phoenix FM, I think
- These seem like the same mention! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis")
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could add Medical Grade Music to his list of books. There's a Guardian interview about it here.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could add Steve Davis Snooker, Virtual Snooker and /or Steve Davis World Snooker to the list of software.
- Virtual snooker is already mentioned. Added the others - I will try and clean these articles up one day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Legacy
- "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories. His modern-era record of six world titles has been broken only by Hendry, and his six UK Championship titles has been bettered only by Ronnie O'Sullivan. Davis compiled over 300 competitive centuries during his career. " - all seems to be unsourced.
- Added some nice sourcing for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Personal life
- "he is honorary president of the Snooker Writers' Association" - source is from 2005, is he still President?
- I'm not even convinced it still exists. There's nothing online in the last decade. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- No idea. Maybe change wording to something like "became", and perhaps remove the redlink as the association doesn't appear to be notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not even convinced it still exists. There's nothing online in the last decade. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he is on the board of Leyton Orient F.C." - source is from 2011, is he still on the board?
- Doesn't look like it. It's hard to find sources, as they've had both a player and manager named "Steve Davis" at Orient. I'll put "was on the board", unless anyone can find differently. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Davis lives in Brentwood, Essex" - source is from 2004, does he still live there?
- No idea. He still was as of 2019, so probably. The mail online suggests he might have been selling [33], but hardly a trustworthy source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Performance and Ranking Timeline
- What's the source for 1990 Shoot Out?
- cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)
- We could use [34], which I'm never sure if it's suitable or not. Looks to have a 13 year history (copyright 2007). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Career finals
- 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup - no source given (I've not been able to find one for the result)
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- That source has "Alex Higgins meets Steve Davis in the 11-frame final of the Hong Kong Gold Cup today" (and some other details) - not the result of the final. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- 2018 Seniors Irish Masters - source has his opponent's name spelt "Jonathan Bagley"
- Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1991 World Mixed Doubles Championship - might be worth linking to 1991 World Masters as it was part of that.
- Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources (I'll try and help where I can if you get stuck....)
- What makes http://www.cuesnviews.co.uk/ a reliable source?
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- What makes https://www.snookerisland.com/ a reliable source?
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- What makes "The Mob Poker Database" a reliable source?
- Replaced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- what makes britishcomedychannel.com a reliable source?
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Guinness Book of Snooker match report" - not sure what this source is. My book with this title is from 1982, and Guinness' The Records book was published in 1985 so neither of those could comment on a match in 1989.
- Removed whole section - not really helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "White Crowned Senior Champion". Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 24 May 2011." looks to be lacking publisher/site.
- FixedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""Champion of Champions Group Seeds Announced – Matchroom Sport". 17 October 2014. Archived from the original on 18 June 2015. Retrieved 21 October 2014." Publisher is part of the title.
- Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Davis, Steve (1989). The Official Matchroom 1990. Hamlyn" - looks like title is incomplete. (see comment under "In other media")
- fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's something odd about " "When Snooker Went Loopy". BBC. 20 November 2000. Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2010." which looks like a BBC site but an IMDB archived page.
- Removed. Weird. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""Snooker Loopy". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 5 February 2009." links to Square Dance Rap by Sir Mix-A-Lot.
- FixedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005). Masters of the Baize: Cue Legends, Bad Boys and Forgotten Men in Search of Snooker's Ultimate Prize" I'm surprised to only see this used once. The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
- I... er. don't have a copy. I'll message you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Snooker Scene refs aren't consistent. (Also, publisher was Everton's News Agency before Snooker Scene Ltd)
- I think I got all of these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notes section doesn't have any sources. I think this is the first snooker bio to be nominated for FA so I'd be interested to hear views on how far the contents of the performance and ranking timeline (progress, and statements like "not held" or "ranking tournament" or "did not participate") need to be sourced within a bio article.
- I'd argue these are cited to the reference sections to the individual tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to be quite a high proportion of "World Snooker" and snooker.org sources, which is fine by me to confirm results, but would we be better with some more commentary from secondary sources? (I'll reflect on this after re-reading)
- I mean, sure, but these are both independent sources in this case. I'd love to use news publications to talk about things, but they aren't all that indepth, especially for the smaller comps. I don't have the snooker scenes from anything earlier than this year, so the worldsnooker links were really helpful, and snooker.org is a good database for what we need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy for those sources for verifying the facts of results, dates, etc. I was thinking more of secondary sources for general commentary/analysis, like Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (nearly 60 references to Davis in the index, some of which likely lead to interesting stuff), Masters of the Baize, or Hayes's Snooker Legends and where are they now? There are also some older books like Trelford's Snookered and Burns's Pocket Money that cover a couple of years in depth (not just about Davis). There are a load of other 1980's books that talk about Davis but obviously recent publications would be preferable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could probably use these in the legacy if you have any ideas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy for those sources for verifying the facts of results, dates, etc. I was thinking more of secondary sources for general commentary/analysis, like Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (nearly 60 references to Davis in the index, some of which likely lead to interesting stuff), Masters of the Baize, or Hayes's Snooker Legends and where are they now? There are also some older books like Trelford's Snookered and Burns's Pocket Money that cover a couple of years in depth (not just about Davis). There are a load of other 1980's books that talk about Davis but obviously recent publications would be preferable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, sure, but these are both independent sources in this case. I'd love to use news publications to talk about things, but they aren't all that indepth, especially for the smaller comps. I don't have the snooker scenes from anything earlier than this year, so the worldsnooker links were really helpful, and snooker.org is a good database for what we need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The archive for "Boniface, Susie (6 March 2005). "Steve's Cutie". Sunday Mirror(Questia Online Library). Archived from the original on 4 May 2021. Retrieved 4 April 2012." isn't very helpful
- Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Layton, Eric. Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. pp. 159–160." name should be Hayton, as per "Hayton, Eric (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker. Suffolk: Rose Villa Publications. pp. 344–347. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4."
- Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Inconsistent ISBN number format in the "Sources" section.
- Should be ok now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Happy, as ever, to discuss or be challenged on any of my review comments. I might have more later, but I think I've earnt my cheese and marmite sandwich for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the responses, Lee Vilenski, I haven't checked through them all yet, but will do. I need to have a look at a few sources to make any other specific suggestions about legacy etc. I haven't found a reliable source for the Hong Kong Gold Cup result - seems it wasn't covered by Snooker Scene unless I haven't found the right issue. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Was the Gold Cup not covered in the link I added? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sadly not. (See above under "Career finals".) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't find much either. I'd suggest a cull, it was just a glorified exhibition with three participants after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose from Amakuru
I feel really bad here, because I've worked a lot with Lee and TRM in the past and consider them to be very good wiki-friends. But without having gone into the detail yet I think there's a fairly fundamental balance issue in this article with the Career section. I ran a quick prose-size check on Sunday evening on the different subsections, and found the following:
Year range | Bytes | Words | Bytes-per-year |
---|---|---|---|
1970-1979 | 1580 | 271 words | 158 |
1980-1984 | 2323 | 385 words | 464.6 |
1985 | 1082 | 184 words | 1082 |
1985–1989 | 3258 | 569 words | 651.6 |
1990–2005 | 1467 | 253 words | 97.8 |
2005–2010 | 3855 | 652 words | 771 |
2010–2016 | 4570 | 778 words | 761.7 |
As we can see, the prose is heavily skewed towards the last ten years of Davis's career, a period which evidently wasn't his heyday. (He won all of his world titles in the 1980s). Looking at the narrative itself, it switches in 2005 from extremely broad-brush statements to suddenly having intricate detail of individual seasons, including individual scores in minor events such as the Australian Goldfields Open. By contrast, the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005 is the shortest of all the sections, with only two shortish paragraphs covering an entire period in which he was presumably a higher-profile player than he was in his twilight years.
Of course, it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out why this phenomenon might have occurred, it's something we see across the Wiki: 2005 marked the point in time when our august project really hit the big time, and from that point on there would have been editors updating details of his tournaments on a daily basis, as and when they happened. This is why our article on John Isner, a decent tennis player but never anywhere near the best in the world, is significantly longer than Pete Sampras, one of the all-time greats.
It's totally understandable why this occurs, and at GA level I would rate this an easy pass. But for FAC, I think I regretfully have to fail this on both criterion 1b and criterion 4. The Career section needs to be written so that it:
- has significantly more detail on the earlier years (particularly that 1990–2005 period), to satisfy 1b "comprehensive", and probably
- a bit less detail on the 2005–2016 period, in order to satisfy criterion 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I doubt we'd want to include Australian Goldfields Open calibre events for every one of the 40 years he played!
Sorry again, but I'm not able to support at this time. If you're able to fix the above issues while the FAC is active, or if there's some fundamental detail that I've missed here, then I'll happily look again and also take a look at the prose and the other sections. There's no doubt this is well on the road towards being an FA, but for now I'll leave it there. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've begun an expansion of that particular section. There's still a bit more that can be added (I haven't gotten as far as 2000-05 yet), but we are already bordering on 200 bytes per year. I agree the later years are too in-depth (for the reasons you outlined), so I'll get on removing some fluff. I'd argue the 70s section is the right size, as he didn't turn professional until 78, perhaps a little more on his development in the early 80s. The later 80s looks about right, considering that's when he was the most popular, most famous snooker player on the planet.
- Give me a day or two to fix, and I'll drop you a ping. Thanks for the in-depth statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth noting, that even after the cull, there are a lot more tournaments in the later seasons compared to those in the 1990s (6 per year against 20ish nowadays). I'm going to do a c/e and get back to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru - I don't know if you mind having another look? Sorry it's been so long, I'm having a few issues offwiki; but if at all possible I'd still like to progress this. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: thanks for the note, and it's certainly looking much better now. That said, the "1990–2005" section is still giving me a cause for concern though. Is there no more detail that can be added to that? I'd favour splitting it into at least two, and bringing it up to having the same level of detail as we see in the post-2005 sections. Just as one example, we have "During the 1990s, Davis also won the Irish Masters four times: in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994"... this has no scores and no individual detail; yet below, we have match-by-match detail on all sorts of tournaments such as the Paul Hunter Classic, Shanghai Masters etc. Perhaps those are more important tournaments than the Irish Masters of the early 1990s, but in general I think the level of coverage needs to be consistent throughout his career for an FA. Regreta that this isn't the answer you want, but this is the gold-standard when it comes to article awards! (Also, the readable prose is at 25kB at the moment, so I don't think there's a danger of the article becoming too long). On the plus side, I'm confident that this can eventually make it, whether on this FAC or a future one, so please keep up the good work. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added some additional to those sections. The issue is around the lack of tournaments during the late 90s and early 2000s, where the game was almost killed off. I'll do a bit more to cull some of the extrenous stuff from later years, as clearly the weight of his career is around his titles in the 90s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Ok thanks, let me know when you're done with that. By the way, ahead of more detailed analysis on this, I'm thinking that some expansion of his media career may be in order as well. Although obviously his career is the dominant aspect of his notability, I think he has become quite ubiquitous on the commentary at the crucible in recent years and I think it would be worth saying more than just the current one-liner "... is a commentator for the BBC's snooker coverage". I think a "Media career" section similar to Mark_Lawrenson#Media_career might be in order, covering when he joined the BBC, which events he covers, any other TV commitments, plus newspaper columns etc (if any). Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've added some additional to those sections. The issue is around the lack of tournaments during the late 90s and early 2000s, where the game was almost killed off. I'll do a bit more to cull some of the extrenous stuff from later years, as clearly the weight of his career is around his titles in the 90s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: thanks for the note, and it's certainly looking much better now. That said, the "1990–2005" section is still giving me a cause for concern though. Is there no more detail that can be added to that? I'd favour splitting it into at least two, and bringing it up to having the same level of detail as we see in the post-2005 sections. Just as one example, we have "During the 1990s, Davis also won the Irish Masters four times: in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994"... this has no scores and no individual detail; yet below, we have match-by-match detail on all sorts of tournaments such as the Paul Hunter Classic, Shanghai Masters etc. Perhaps those are more important tournaments than the Irish Masters of the early 1990s, but in general I think the level of coverage needs to be consistent throughout his career for an FA. Regreta that this isn't the answer you want, but this is the gold-standard when it comes to article awards! (Also, the readable prose is at 25kB at the moment, so I don't think there's a danger of the article becoming too long). On the plus side, I'm confident that this can eventually make it, whether on this FAC or a future one, so please keep up the good work. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru - I don't know if you mind having another look? Sorry it's been so long, I'm having a few issues offwiki; but if at all possible I'd still like to progress this. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth noting, that even after the cull, there are a lot more tournaments in the later seasons compared to those in the 1990s (6 per year against 20ish nowadays). I'm going to do a c/e and get back to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Davis pockets snooker crown", November 2, 1986, Toronto Star, The (Ontario, Canada), Author: Rick Morrison, Page: E6
- ^ "... - BUT THE MILLION-DOLLAR MAN WILL NOT BE HERE – SNOOKER", May 4, 1988, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia), Author: LES WHEELER, Page: 66
- ^ "Elders renews its sponsorship of snooker ace Steve Davis", Gideon Haigh, The Age (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia),11 Apr 1990,Page 26
- ^ "Earn with Hearn – it’s the life of Riley" Michael Herd, Evening Standard ,(London, Greater London, England), 01 Apr 1985, page 37
Ceoil placeholder
- Waiting for the above to be resolved, which seems on track. Have ready about half the page so far. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate any comments you have Ceoil. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility review
- #CCCCCC text on #F8F9FA background does not meet MOS:COLOUR/WCAG AA. I checked at https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/.
- With some help, I've changed this. If it's suitable, I'll let the project know the change needs to be made across all our bios. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- It seems it would only meet AA if it was large text. It looks like #727272 text on #F8F9FA background is the lowest acceptable for meeting AA, and ideally it would be #555555 to meet AAA. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- With some help, I've changed this. If it's suitable, I'll let the project know the change needs to be made across all our bios. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Tables should have captions per MOS:DTAB; because some are below headings you can enclose those in Template:Sronly. Heartfox (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Covered (unless there's an additional table I didn't see.)
- All covered Heartfox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot—The infobox image could use alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- All covered Heartfox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Covered (unless there's an additional table I didn't see.)
Rockstar San Diego
- Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the video game developer Rockstar San Diego, formerly known as Angel Studios. Rockstar San Diego is one of the best-known Rockstar Games studios and has produced highly acclaimed games, such as Red Dead Redemption (2010). It has a 35-plus-year history beginning as a work-fore-hire animation studio, turning into a video game studio, and being acquired by Rockstar Games. I originally wrote this article gradually as a learning exercise starting in October 2017; it became a GA in November 2019. Having exhausted all immediately available sources, I want to take on FA as the next step. Credit goes to the GOCE members Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978, GA reviewer Spy-cicle, peer reviewers Panini!, Rhain and SandyGeorgia, and FA mentor PresN. IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I participated at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1, and will watchlist to go through after independent editors have been through. I am have been extremely busy IRL, and have not yet had time to check whether my prose concerns were addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Panini!
Participated in the peer review but didn't say much.
- Infobox
- Similar edits at Paper Mario with this one; you can cut "Rockstar San Diego's" because its what the article is about.
- I'd also find a way to cut out one of the two instances of "Rockstar Games". It can be a mouthful.
- Lead
- "... and a studio of Rockstar Games that is based in Carlsbad, California." The "that is" can be cut to remove the repitition of is.
- I'd link computer animation
- "It began with a focus of..." I'd change "It" to "the company"; it refers to Angel prior and it seems like you are calling him a thing.
- Early years (1984–1993)
- (also spelled Diego Ángel) would work better as a hatnote. I'm an anti-paranthesis person because they look unproffessional if used excessively in my eyes, so there could be other instances where hatnotes could work better too.
- "... Angel's wife invested in Angel Studios and Angel secured a bank loan." Although I'm a Christian, there's too much Angel here. I'd change the second instance to "the company".
- Refer to Hunt and Limber by their full names in their first appearances ("Hunt became the company's chief technology officer and Limber was its chief operating officer..." and then later "Brad Hunt and Michael Limber were among the founding partners.")
- "...which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way..." I would change "any" to "every" because it currently sounds like, "They didn't do any work, but they did work."
- Entry into video games (1993–2000)
- "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for Silicon Graphics'..." Repetitive, -> "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's..."
- "... as a partner for the upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, which ultimately became the Nintendo 64." -> "...as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64."
Beyond this point, I got distracted in reading, which in my eyes means you did a very good job.
- Miscellanious
- I don't believe stating "the founder of Angel Studios" in the quote box is necessary.
- Not necessary, but any "See also"'s?
- Are refs 7 and 8 the same?
Panini!🥪 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Panini!:, should be all done. Refs 7 and 8 are separate parts of the same story (appearing on different pages, so I had to clip them individually). I see no viable see-alsos that are not already linked within the article ( Rockstar North, Red Dead, and so forth would have been good fits). Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I currently have nothing outstanding so no QPQ is needed. Unless if I find something to do in the future. Panini!🥪 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, yes I do, Paper Mario is at WP:TFAR. Panini!🥪 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Shooterwalker
- Lead
- Can drop "The" from Columbian entrepreneur. (Columbian-American?)
- "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s; its first video game projects were Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996), for which the company created cutscenes." -> "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s, creating cutscenes for Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996)."
- I know you mention Angel Studios in brackets right away, but it might add clarity to name the studio in context. For example, "founded the company as Angel Studios", or "As Angel Studios, the company began..." That way it would be less jarring when you start calling it Angel Studios later, and you could easily just call it "the company" or "the studio".
- "Angel Studios fully developed games in association with" -> "The company developed its first full games by working with..." or "They soon began developing full games with..."
- Also consider putting the cutscene sentence next to the full game sentence, changing the paragraph structure for better context.
- Is there a clearer word than "housed"?
- Early years
- Consider naming "early years" to include something to do with art / animation, just as the second heading mentions video games.
- Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? If so, was he investing in his own studio? If it wasn't money, maybe there is a better word.
- "receive a job" -> "find a paying client"
- For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year...
- "was films and music videos" --> "was for films and music videos"
- "The studio was most successful with" --> "The studio's biggest successes came in 1992, with"
- "adaptation of its scenes for the movie" --> "adaptation of its scenes from the movie"
- "It further produced" --> "The studio further produced"
- "The agency Spear/Hall & Associates was contracted to handle marketing services for Angel Studios" --> "They also contracted the agency Spear/Hall & Associates to handle their marketing services." (passive voice to active voice)
- Entry into video games
- "Angel Studios cooperated with the technology company Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's high-end computers and receive some of the computers in exchange." -> "Angel Studios collaborated on technology demos for Silicon Graphics computers, in exchange for high-end computers of their own."
- "He requested an appointment with the company the following day and three days later signed it as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64" -> "He met with the company the next day and signed an agreement just three days later, making them a partner for their upcoming console."
- "The studio shifted its focus to the video game industry and in February 1995, it was announced as joining Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of third-party companies that would develop games for the Nintendo Ultra 64" -> "The studio shifted its focus to video game development, and Nintendo announced them as one of the studios on their "Dream Team" for the Nintendo 64."
- "Angel stated he decided to stop seeking projects in fields in which the company had already succeeded if the field involved a "high-risk, capital-intensive business", even if it offered rich potential" -> "Around this time, Angel consciously steered the studio away from "high-risk, capital-intensive" projects, even if they offered rich potential."
- "Annunziata was pleased with the result and invited" -> "Pleased with the result, Annunziata invited"
- "As part of the Dream Team" -> "As part of Nintendo's "Dream Team""
- "Still in conjunction with Nintendo, Angel Studios worked with video game designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a Nintendo 64 vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie" -> "Angel Studios continued their work for the Nintendo 64, collaborating with designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie"
- "For the first meeting with Miyamoto, Angel and some designers spent 45 days creating a "design bible", which Miyamoto rejected upon confrontation, asking the team to spend the next three months working on the game technology and to "find the fun"." -> "Angel Studios spent 45 days creating a "design bible" for their first meeting with Miyamoto, but he rejected it and asked them to "find the fun" over the next three months."
- "The company fit a game taking up two compact discs for the PlayStation version onto one Nintendo 64 cartridge, which had less than 10% of the original data storage" -> "The studio condensed the game's data to less than 10% of its original size, fitting the original version's two compact discs onto a single Nintendo 64 cartridge".
- If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired.
- "The Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98 exhibited Angel Studios' film Oceania, which was described as a "virtual journey", throughout 1998" -> "The studio's film Oceania was exhibited at the Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98"
- "The June 1998 opening of the first DisneyQuest interactive theme park in Orlando, Florida, debuted Virtual Jungle Cruise, an adventure ride to which the studio had contributed"
- "The studio also contributed to an adventure ride called Virtual Jungle Cruise, which debuted at the June 1998 opening of the DisneyQuest interactive theme park."
- "He decided his employees should work on their own and find their own ways to produce a full-fledged video game, a policy that was considered a major factor for the product's quality. Some workers developed a sense of ownership of their respective parts" -> "He encouraged his employees to work independently and take ownership over the game's different parts, and this policy was considered a major factor in the game's quality."
- "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend known as XGirl. The game was planned as a launch title for Microsoft's Xbox console but was canceled" -> "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend. The game was planned as an Xbox launch title called Xgirl, but was cancelled."
- Other notes
- At the end of the article, you have a list of games, but Oceania is described as a film. You should decide whether you want to include the studio's video work (e.g.: Lawnmower Man, Peter Gabriel), or just focus the list on games. Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue.
- I haven't checked any sources for accuracy. On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that.
- I'll come back for the last couple sections. On the whole the article is quite good, and don't let the notes detract from what's clearly on its way to FA. Great work so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:
- (Columbian-American?) – Sources describe him as Colombian. I don't think that he has US citizenship.
- Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? – The source only says "invested". To avoid unclarity, I removed that part instead.
- For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year... – This must have been 1986-ish but the source unfortunately does not provide a year.
- If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired. – This is never explicitly stated in the sources; the news just stopped after the acquisition and the game never came out. It is know that there were some shake-ups at Graphix Zone shortly after the purchase.
- Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue. – Good catch. I removed Oceania, though I believe the first two games are fine as they are proper games with Angel Studios providing additional work, even if that additional work was art and not code.
- On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that. – The 2018 controversy centered around Rockstar Games more broadly, rather than R*SD alone. The Kotaku feature briefly mentions R*SD briefly in connection with this. I will look into adding some of these details soon. Red Dead Redemption 2#Controversies covers this comparably.
- Lastly, I was taught to generally use 'it' for companies instead of 'they', which you use. Do you know whether this is MoS'd in any way? Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.
- "companies' combined expertise" -> "company's expertise" (not multiple companies?)
- "which was owned by" -> "a licensed game for"
- could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name?
- "Development of the sequel, which was titled Oni 2: Death & Taxes, was eventually halted" -> "However, Oni 2: Death & Taxes was cancelled during development."
- "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to. The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse." -> "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer. When he didn't respond, Rockstar then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse, and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted."
- Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? Becoming Rock Star San Diego is a big turning point, and it will also prime the reader to stop thinking of them as Angel, and start thinking of them as a subsidiary under the Rockstar brand.
- "Angel Studios began work on the game in 2000, while Capcom oversaw it, funded it, and announced it in March 2002" -> These are probably separate thoughts, and should be separated into two sentences.
- Maybe make it clearer that Rockstar bought the rights from Capcom, and not just abstractly.
- "a stealth game with an open world" -> "an open world stealth game"
- "The development team leadership, led by producer Luis Gigliotti, was inherited from the studio's Transworld Surf (2001)." -> This might be a little unclear as to how the leadership transferred, let alone why it's important. Comparing the teams between games might not be that important.
- "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? If it was after launch, does it make sense to place this sentence later, after launch?
- "In both cases, police detained artists; the situation in Washington, D.C., was quickly resolved in but the one in Cairo took significantly more time. After both teams returned with their photographs, the development continued. " -> "When police detained the artists in both Washington and Cairo, the situation was eventually resolved. But Cairo took significantly more time, and development continued once both photography teams had returned."
- "RAGE remains in development and is used in" -> the tense here is a little jarring, though I get that you're speaking to something that will persist for a long time. Maybe "RAGE would go on to be used..."?
- "Since the acquisition, Angel had been working"... -> "Founder and CEO Diego Angel had been working..." (more important to remind folks that the founder is leaving than to explain the timing since the acquisition)
- "The Houser brothers tried to persuade him to stay" -> add a comma for flow
- "settle in Colombia" -> "return to Colombia"
- "In Medellín, Angel created game development opportunities that ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area." -> "In Medellín, Angel tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area."
- "by January 2006" -> can probably drop this as it's implied, considering it follows on December 2005.
- In the home stretch here. Take a stab at those and we can hopefully wrap up in the next day or two. Shooterwalker ( talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Re:
- (not multiple companies?) – This refers to Angel Studios and Rockstar Games, each with expertise on their own. I changed "the companies'" to "their" for hopefully better clarity.
- could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name? – I chose to keep the full name because both "Rockstar"s are mentioned frequently, making confusion between the two somewhat possible. I hope this does not pose too much of an issue.
- Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? – Not sure whether an additional header is the best choice here as the section is mostly about how the acquisition came to and what happened immediately thereafter. Only the first paragraph does not strictly tie into this, though it discusses how the relationship between Rockstar Games and Angel Studios built up. Should I move that to the previous section? I could also rename the section something like "Acquisition and transition to Rockstar San Diego" to make it more obvious what it is about.
- "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? – This refers to any launch, not a specific game. As in, after each release, all staff would get two or so weeks off, which Rockstar Games scrapped. I'm not sure where to put this but I moved it up to the actual acquisition.
- Thanks again! IceWelder [ ✉] 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Re:
- I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.
- @Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:
- The vacation part is now clearer, so that helps. The other stuff seems more clear now too. Do consider adding another heading, as it's one of the strongest and most helpful cues for the reader. I don't think there's any harm in breaking the acquisition out into its own section, as that section is already five paragraphs as is. But I wouldn't insist and you should take your cues from other reviewers when they come along.
- This is a style thing, but I find "controversy" to always be vague and euphemistic. "Labor issues and Red Dead Redemption" would be shorter and clearer.
- "Former Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and over one hundred other ex-employees against the company on August 26, 2006, over unpaid overtime compensation." -> "By 2006, two former Rockstar San Diego artists filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over one hundred ex-employees, claiming unpaid overtime compensation." (The timing is a good way to start the section, and we can be less wordy since the actual names of the claimants aren't as important in a class action.)
- Add "Even after the settlement, the wives", for better flow and context...
- The Rockstar quote is one where I think it's important to state it in their own words, rather than paraphrase, for readers to have the most accurate sense of their response. "...saddened if any former members of any studio did not find their time here enjoyable or creatively fulfilling..." is a good place to start.
- "; other key employees" -> a hard stop "." would be better here.
- "Take-Two Interactive's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, named it one of the company's strategic permanent franchises" -> considering the last sentence, it feels like you could improve the context and flow here too. Even as simple as "Speaking to investors, Take-Two's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, announced that the game would become one the company's strategic permanent franchises."
- For the 2011 section, I think the timing is a little confusing that you jump from 2011 to 2018 in the first sentence, then jump back. I might move this sentence to later, closer to the release, or at least split this sentence into separate thoughts.
- The second sentence about two games would probably be appropriate to separate into two separate thoughts too.
- Without any context, the part about hiring for an untitled open world project feels kind of meaningless. I'd drop it, or find a way to make it more relevant, either explaining what happened to the project, or dropping the project to focus on the simple fact that the company was growing (which you could connect to them leasing a massive office space).
- "Martin left Rockstar San Diego in July 2019; he joined the Chinese conglomerate Tencent in December that year and opened a studio called "LightSpeed LA" for the company in July 2020." -> "In 2019, Martin left Rockstar San Diego to join Chinese conglomerate Tencent, opening a subsidiary studio called "LightSpeed LA" the following year."
- This last section is well written, but feels short. Not in the sense that it's one paragraph, but in the sense that it lists a lot of projects and doesn't really give much context about how they turned out, or their significance to the studio.
- The N/A in the tables isn't the worst thing, but it feels like the theme park would be as much of a platform as a console. Would make the table feel more complete.
- The article was already in good shape and it's already in better shape. Keep it up. You're very close IMO. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- [35]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support thanks to all your revisions. The prose is on the whole better and clearer. I'm hoping that other editors will take a closer look at the references, so I suppose my support is conditional on that. There's a few outstanding questions, like how much to expand the last section, or how to include the VR games in the table. But let's see what other editors say, since the article otherwise meets the FA criteria, from what I can tell. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- [35]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Spy-cicle
Did a pretty thorough GA review a while ago, and glad to see it is making its way to FAC (also great to see a free image of Angel). Not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but here are some intial comments. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- he company as Angel Studios in January 1984 after studying film in Chicago, where he grew fond of computer animation. The company... Maybe change the second use of the company to business/firm to avoid repetition, especially as sentence are back to back. This also goes somewhat for the body sometimes if you can repleace with studio/developer/it/firm, etc slightly more engaging and less repetitive
- Is it worth linking to "Kiss That Frog" to album it is from (Us (Peter Gabriel album))
- In the infobox "RAGE Technology Group" surely this should be spelled out in full "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group" since RAGE is not a common acronym
- "and continued with commercials for Nintendo, Polaroid Corporation, Asiana Airlines, and Cobra Golf, among others" So was the "educational video" a commerical as well? Continued makes it seems as if is but it is not clear or when they started doing commericals. Slightly awkward wording unless I'm missing something
- @Spy-cicle: Thank you! I fixed the duplication, linked the song (now a redirect to the album), and slightly reworded the commercials bit. Regarding the RAGE Technology Group, the division is known in full by that name (cf., for example, the Grand Theft Auto V credits). I am not aware of a source that refers to it as "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group". Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Santería
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a religion that formed in Cuba, drawing upon both traditional West African religions (primarily those of the Yoruba) with elements of Roman Catholicism. It has since spread to various parts of the Americas and also to Europe. Having previously brought Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari up to FA status, I'm hoping that I've done enough to allow this currently GA-rated article to become an FA too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review+ other comments
- Length is an issue with this article. It's 10524 words. Personally I think its readability would benefit a lot from reduction around 20% by increased use of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've taken out a few sentences in the "Demographics" section and will try and trim a few more bits here and there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've done some general pruning, so the article now contains less than 10,000 words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Ellegua.jpg Dubious licensing. People often upload photographs as "own work" even if they're not the copyright holder of the underlying work. This is a fairly sophisticated piece of artwork and I think it would need OTRS for me to be convinced it's freely licensed.
- Fair enough. It's a shame to lose it as I think it definitely helps with the illustration of the article, but you're right that the licensing here is far from water-tight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Cuba rel94.jpg worst of both worlds, it's too small to actually read and it doesn't inform where Cuba actually is, unless the person already knows where Cuba is. File:CUB orthographic.svg may be better.
- I've gone with the latter image, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Statuo de Elegua en santeria vendejo (Mantilla, Havano).jpg I don't think this image is free either. The main subject in the photo is clearly the figurine so you can't claim de minimis applies and generally photographs of artistic statue-like objects are protected by two copyrights, including the one for the underlying object. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have now removed it; hopefully another image of Elegua will emerge in future that can be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Other images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some sections such as "Definitions" and "Olodumare and the oricha" are longer than ideal for readability, especially for mobile viewers, and should be considered for trimming or splitting into subsections. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have split "Olodumare and the oricha" into several sub-sections and will look at doing the same for "Definitions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have also added a sub-section into the "Definitions" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
This seems to be attracting little attention. If there is not considerable movement towards a consensus to promote by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Vaticidalprophet
This is a great topic and a great article, and I'd hate to see it archived for lack of interest. I don't have my sea legs about FAC yet, so I'm approaching this quite cautiously, but I've read through and have an eye to support. I'll come back to pick some nits. Vaticidalprophet 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Beliefs
It features 16 prominent deities, some female and others male
I'm not sure that these clauses are best combined. "features 16 prominent deities" seems best-paired with the currently-choppy first sentence on polytheism, while the gender of the deities slots in with the later-in-the-paragraph discussion of their characteristics.
- I've made the change you suggest here, merging the "16 prominent deities" part in with the opening sentence and moving the mention of gender to a later point in that same paragraph. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Practitioners believe that some oricha were created before humanity, but that others were originally humans who became oricha through some remarkable quality
This is not, I think, a "but" matter. They're combined ideas, rather than contradictory ones. "...were created before humanity, while others were originally humans..."
- That's much better. Good suggestion. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
he is the messenger between humanity and the oricha and most ceremonies start by requesting his permission to continue
This feels to me as though it's missing a comma after 'oricha', but may be personal style.
- I can certainly add a comma in here, that's no problem. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The religion maintains that all people have multiple egun accompanying them at all times, and that these can be either benevolent, malevolent, or a mix of both
Superfluous 'either'.
- A fair point. I've taken out "either" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Several academics have described Santería as having a "here-and-now" ethos distinct from that of Christianity, and the social scientist Mercedes C. Sandoval suggested that many Cubans chose Santería over Roman Catholicism or Spiritism because it emphasizes techniques for dealing with pragmatic problems in life
There's a set of ideas here that doesn't quite emerge in the article and feels like it wants to emerge. You discuss earlier that Santeria is not an orthodox religion. Here, you stop just short of calling it an orthoprax one. The article doesn't drop the word 'orthoprax', simply heavily hints at it. Do any sources discuss orthodoxy vs orthopraxy in Santeria explicitly?
- Not in so many words, unfortunately. I think that we could maybe throw in a wikilink to the Orthopraxy article in-text somewhere, but perhaps not use that word itself. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Practices
Santería is a practice-oriented religion; ritual correctness is considered more important than belief
Same as for before -- this is almost, but not quite, explicitly saying 'orthopraxy' and comparing the concepts. Orthopraxy is a pretty unfamiliar theological concept to a lot of people in English-speaking regions, and I think it's worth explicitly discussing more what that means, and what makes Santeria different -- even unfamiliar -- through the lens of people working off Christian assumptions.
- As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikilink is fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Most of its activities revolve around the oricha, although it also displays a focus on solving the problems of everyday life
Are these actually distinct ideas in orthoprax religions? "Although" sets them off as counters.
- I've changed this sentence to the following: "Most of its activities revolve around the oricha and focus on solving the problems of everyday life." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Since at least the 20th century, some initiates have kept libretas, notebooks in which they have written down material relevant to the practice of Santería
The article does not make clear the relevance of this sentence. "Some initiates" beginning in relatively recent years, and without later discussion of the concept, doesn't explain why this is encyclopedically relevant.
- I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like a better fit -- it's a bit disjointed where it is. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Most Cubans do not understand the Lucumí language, barring a few words that have filtered into Cuban Spanish, the daily language of most practitioners
Is the last clause of this sentence necessary? The needed ideas are expressed without it.
- I've removed "the daily language of most practitioners." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The casa will typically also include a place to store ritual paraphernalia
So...this article uses the term 'paraphernalia' a few times (including in the caption of the image right here). It is, in the abstract, a perfectly respectable word, and likely to be the best one possible. But -- the common association with the term is drug paraphernalia, to the point if you google the word alone you get this. Considering there are already drug-culture associations with Santeria in the popular consciousness, I'm not sure this wording won't attract snickers from peanut-gallery readers.
- Difficult one. I'm certainly open to using a synonym here, but "equipment", "utensils", and "implements" all also have connotations of other types of activity (indeed, more so than "paraphernalia", at least in my experience). Terms like "stuff" and "things" are just too vague. On the balance of things, I'd say "paraphernalia" is our best option. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Altars or shrines to the oricha are typically found both within the igbodu, and in practitioners' homes
Not sure this needs a comma.
- Removed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
anthropologists have observed practitioners who have included Taoist figurines, or statues of wizards, on their altars
As above re. comma.
- Removed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There are specific rules of engagement that are laid out for taking part in the toque de santo; dancing poorly at the ritual is considered an insult to the oricha
This is a great line, exactly the kind of thing that catches a reader's attention in a long article. Is there anything more on the bad dancing?
- In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, that's a great line -- I'd definitely add it. Human interest, y'know. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Some practitioners have also reported becoming possessed by an oricha in non-ritual contexts, such as while sleeping or walking through the streets, or in some cases during drumming performances carried out for non-religious purposes
"In some cases" seems superfluous.
- Removed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
History
They largely adhered to what is now known as Yoruba traditional religion
-- is this WP:PLEONASM? There may be a better way to discuss the Yoruba religions.
- I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but I think it sounds off how it's currently phrased. "They largely adhered to their traditional religions, rather than the Abrahamic religions they would later convert to" ...that's a quick rephrase and not necessarily a good one, but that's the sort of idea I think it's better pointed at. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In the 1920s, there were efforts to incorporate elements of Afro-Cuban culture into a wider understanding of Cuban culture, such as through the afrocubanismo literary and artistic movement
Should Afrocubanismo be capitalized?
- It certainly can be. I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarded largely as a U.S. phenomenon rather than a Cuban one
I'm not sure how relevant it is to this paragraph, then. The rest of the section seems to focus on Santeria as practiced in Cuba, rather than as practiced in the United States.
- I've deleted this part of the sentence; it is not essential. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
One of the most prominent figures in this revival, Ava Kay Jones, had for instance previously been involved in King's Orisha-Voodoo
"For instance" seems either superfluous, or needing to be moved forward in the sentence.
- I've taken out "for instance" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Demographics
However, there are a greater number of people who are not initiates but turn to santeros and santeras for assistance on practical matters
Strike "however".
- Done. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- This section broadly seems to use older numbers, although I recognize it may be a limitation of what sources exist.
- Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any more recent data on this subject. After a big rush of scholarly research on Santería coming out in the 2000s, things have died down a bit in the past ten years (academic fads moving on, I suppose) so there's no contemporary discussion of demographic information to draw on. Hopefully some more work will be done on this topic in future, which we can then incorporate into the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Reception
- I think there may be room for expansion here, particularly in the last paragraph, which has a lot of ideas and seems to be compressing them. There's at least one very long sentence trying to deal with multiple different ideas ("the Catholics and the animal welfare activists both opposed" type stuff).
- The Reliable Sources haven't really dealt much with the broader social impact and reception of Santería, strangely enough. (Whereas the sources on Haitian Vodou tend to dwell on these issues to a greater extent). I'm certainly open to an expansion of this section, although the article is already pretty much at the upper end of its recommended WP:Article Size at present. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Overall, this is a strong article. I'm hoping these can be resolved so I can support. Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to read through this article and offer your thoughts, Vaticidalprophet. I hope that you enjoyed doing so and found it informative. I believe that I have responded to all of your points but let me know if any more come to you. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking good -- just made a couple replies. Vaticidalprophet 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1999 Football League First Division play-off Final
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is another dive into the single most valuable association football match in the world. Obviously a disappointment here since the Tractor Boys didn't quite make it, but a fun ride nevertheless and some big names of English football involved too. As always, sensible and constructive criticism is welcomed and will be actioned as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cheers. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- What about unconstructive criticism? Therapyisgood ( talk) 18:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be interesting. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments on the lead
- The top division should be referred to throughout as the Premier League. "Premiership" was a sponsored name.
- "Bolton Wanderers ended the season in fifth position while Watford sixth" - missing word near the end I think
- "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining as Watford won the match 2–0" => "Allan Smart doubled their lead with two minutes remaining and Watford won the match 2–0" ("as" suggests they won with two minutes remaining)
- "since its inception in 1992–93 season" => "since its inception in the 1992–93 season"
- "It also meant that Watford were promoted second successive season" - missing words I think
- Putting this here partly as a placeholder - I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- All done Chris, thanks. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments on the next bit
- "Michael Johansen volleyed the ball past Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal, and securing....." - bit of a grammar issue there. Probably best just to remove the "and"
- Frandsen is mentioned for the first time without his forename or a wikilink
- "despite Holland's 20-yard (18 m) strike making it 4–3 to Ipswich in the 116th minute, the tie ended 4–4 on aggregate" - the tie didn't end 4-4 on aggregate despite Holland's goal, it ended 4-4 on aggregate because of his goal. Suggest a re-wording here.
- "Watford faced Birmingham City in their play-off semi-final and played the first leg away at Vicarage Road" - Watford played away at Vicarage Road??
- "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland had hit" => "Before half-time, Birmingham City's Chris Holland hit". Also suggest the second "before" in this sentence be changed to "and" to avoid repetition..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- All done Chris, thanks again. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments on the rest
- "Watford manager Graham Taylor last managed a team" => "Watford manager Graham Taylor had last managed a team"
- "Bolton's top scorer in the league was Taylor who had fifteen goals for the season" - as a completely different Taylor was just mentioned in the last sentence, might be worth giving his full name to make this 100% clear
- "Despite Bolton dominating the midfield, in the eleventh minute Steve Palmer's long ball forward was allowed to bounce before Kennedy's shot was high over the bar" - this is a bit unclear. Does all of the bit after the comma refer to a single move or two separate moves? Also, how does this relate to Bolton dominating the midfield?
- "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was defended by Robinson and Page" - not sure I have ever seen the wording that Player X was defended by Player Y......?
- "Guðjohnsen had another chance after breaking free but was defended by Page" - same again
- I would write Bolton Wanderers in full in the details section
- "Elton John had watched the match live from Seattle said" => "Elton John, who had watched the match live from Seattle, said"
- "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, and losing 26 of their 38 matches" => "the club finished bottom of the Premier League, 12 points from safety, losing 26 of their 38 matches"
- Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Third tranche done Chris, many thanks. Let me know if anything else remains to be done. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Follow-up
- "On 13 minutes, Eiður Guðjohnsen was marked by both Robinson and Page, but the ball fell to Johansen" - apologies, but I still find it hard to figure out what happened in this incident - did Guðjohnsen pass the ball to Johansen? I'm guessing not, based on the wording "the ball fell to....", which doesn't imply an intentional pass.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So you can see the source for yourself, it says "Eidur Gudjohnson is crowded out of the Watford area by Paul Robinson and Page, but the ball breaks to Michael Johansen who flashes the ball across the face of the goal." I could just ditch the first clause altogether and go for Johansen shoots wide, but I thought the first clause added flavour. Suggestions appreciated. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe say that Guðjohnsen was challenged by the other two players? That's presumably what happened. Simply saying that he was marked by them conveys the sense that they were just hovering near to him and then somehow the ball wound up with Johansen, if that makes sense....... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- As you like, done! The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe say that Guðjohnsen was challenged by the other two players? That's presumably what happened. Simply saying that he was marked by them conveys the sense that they were just hovering near to him and then somehow the ball wound up with Johansen, if that makes sense....... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
Coming up to the three week mark and this has only attracted one general support. If there are not further signs of a consensus to promote building over the next two or three days I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, remind me, am I or am I not allowed to seek the views of others because different co-ordinators say polar different things. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:FAC coordinators: I need explicit guidance on this please. One of you has, on numerous occasions, suggested "calling in favours" while one of you has explicitly told me not to go off to seek reviewers when a FAC got stalled. Which is it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is fine to draw other editors' attention to a FAC, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Gog the Mild ( talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good to know, perhaps all the co-ordinators should get up to speed with that. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yep -- while I don't think I use the expression "calling in favours", I've often suggested that nominators seek reviews in a neutrally worded manner when necessary, and haven't changed my position on that. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is fine to draw other editors' attention to a FAC, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Gog the Mild ( talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Kosack
- "gained automatic promotion to the Premiership", noting what Chris said above regarding the use of Premiership, is this a deliberate usage or an oversight?
- Could perhaps link overhead kick to Bicycle kick in the lead and the match summary.
- "before a 50 yards (46 m) run", should that be yard rather than yards?
- What is the source for the captains in the match details section?
In all honesty, I'm struggling to find much to complain about. I'll be supporting either way really but there are a handful of very minor points to look at. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kosack thanks for the review! I addressed all your comments and as for the captains, no sources, so that's sadly gone. Cheers, let me know if there's anything else I can do? The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support, this is another high quality piece of work. Kosack ( talk) 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kosack thanks for the review! I addressed all your comments and as for the captains, no sources, so that's sadly gone. Cheers, let me know if there's anything else I can do? The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Probably subjective but "played on 31 May 1999 at Wembley Stadium, London, between Bolton Wanderers and Watford.", perhaps "played on 31 May 1999 between Bolton Wanderers and Watford at the Wembley Stadium in London". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- It follows the format of most of the other FA/GAs I've written of this nature, and we'd never say "the Wembley Stadium"... The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1999–2000 season in the Premier League. - I feel like this has been said before, and doesn't quite work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- It follows the format of most of the other FAs/GAs I've written, can you suggest an alternative if you feel like it doesn't quite work as it is? The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Do we have a link for "overhead kick"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, linked. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I feel like a sentence or two on how the media/teams felt about the results in the lede would help a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Added that Watford were considered relegation favourites and that Elton John loved it. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- Watford finished ten points behind Bradford City (who were promoted in second place) and twenty-eight behind league winners Sunderland.[1] - is it worth using 10 and 28? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- MOS allows for either. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe the 6-6 in penalties is worth expanding on, as it's reasonably rare to go that high. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it was the final then I'd agree, but this was the semi-final. The goals were scored, and that's what's significant. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Watford were immediately installed by William Hill as favourites for relegation from the Premier League the following season - is there any reason why we are using William Hill specifically? Were they the sponsors? Also, we should define who they are "i.e. Bookmakers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I have in sources, I can't pick and choose which bookies remarked on things in 1999...! Added bookmakers. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski I've responded to and/or actioned all your comments, thanks so much for the review. Let me know how to proceed with those I haven't satisfactorily addressed. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Singer Building
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.
This was promoted as a Good Article nine months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Eddie891. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Accessibility — the infobox image is missing alt text and image_alt parameter. Heartfox (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: Thanks. I have added an alt accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
Epicgenius, you could do with attracting some reviewers to this. More than two weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote promoting. If this doesn't change over the next two or three days I am afraid that it liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have let this go another two weeks, but sadly it still shows little sign of building a consensus to promote. If this doesn't change over the next two days I regret that it will be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Edwininlondon
With the caveat that I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, here are some comments you may consider:
- Infobox says Beaux-Arts but the body does not mention this
- I added a mention to the body. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Infobox says demolished 1968 but body says start in September 1967 and finished in 1969
- Done.
- Infobox says 15 elevators, lead says 16
- Fixed the infobox.
- I'm not convinced about the lead's last paragraph. The content is fine, but I find it odd that the original building is described last in the lead, I would expect it to be the second paragraph. Is there a reason why straightforward chronological description isn't used?
- The last paragraph of the lead is chronologically arranged. The first buildings on the site are described in the first sentence. The second sentence is about the tower expansion and the annex to the two original buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, my fault, I failed to make my point clear: I was wondering if it would be better if the second paragraph starts with "The original 10-story Singer Building was erected between 1897 and 1898, while the 14-story Bourne Building was built adjacent to it from 1898 to 1899." and so on, all chronologically. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, that makes sense. I have rearranged it accordingly. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, my fault, I failed to make my point clear: I was wondering if it would be better if the second paragraph starts with "The original 10-story Singer Building was erected between 1897 and 1898, while the 14-story Bourne Building was built adjacent to it from 1898 to 1899." and so on, all chronologically. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I expected the article to start with a background section about early skyscrapers, probably about Manhattan specifically, but definitely including which building previously was the tallest. And maybe consider putting in a bit about Singer as well. Just to set the stage rather than jumping straight into Design.
- I'm also not sure about the History section coming after Design. It may just be personal preference, I just like a chronological approach. In the current approach there is lots of detail about the original building and the Bourne building in the Form section, and then a bit more in the History section. But no doubt there will be issues with a chronological approach as well, so as I said, I'm not sure. But something for you to consider.
- You have a good point on both counts. To me, it seems like a background section would be suitable. However, it would be more suitable as the beginning of a history section. As for why the design section comes first, I do this in many of my articles because I feel the design elements are most relevant to the subject, followed by the history. I'm fine with changing the order around if there's a better reason why the history section is more relevant to the subject. I am currently working on writing a background section. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see your point and agree that the design elements are more relevant than the history. If this follows the structure of other articles, we should not deviate. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Lead uses Singer Manufacturing Company but Design section uses Singer Sewing Machine Company
- Fixed.
- previous headquarters at 561 Broadway.[b] The previous --> repetition of previous
- Removed.
- was also referred to the "Little Singer Building" --> insert as?
- Done.
- Otto F. Semsch,[12][4]--> I believe the convention is to list refs in ascending order
- Fixed.
- Contemporary sources at the time ... to the entire structure. --> Perhaps it would be better to end the section with this, to keep things in chronological order?
- Done.
- The base of the building filled the entire lot. --> there's an earlier lot that is not linked
- I moved the link. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- There was a gap of 10 feet (3.0 m) --> this is a bit puzzling to me, as The tower was set back 30 feet (9.1 m) behind the base. Is it set back 30 feet on one side and 10 on another?
- Yes. The tower was set back 30 feet on Broadway, which is to the east. The adjacent building to the north was 10 feet away from the tower. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The narrowness of the gap was because the columns required to support the Singer Tower would have been too large to place atop the original Singer Building. --> Sorry, I don't get this
- The original building was at the southeastern portion of the lot. The original building couldn't support the weight of a large tower. Instead, when the northern annex was built, the tower was built atop that northern annex. That portion of the building was close to the City Investing Building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- 4,280,000 pounds (1,940,000 kg) of limestone --> we go from square feet to million bricks to cubic feet to pounds: it would be nicer if the unit of measurement could be consistent. Not sure if the sources allow you to do that of course.
- These measurements are from the source. I wish there were a source that was more consistent, but sadly I haven't found one. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- There was extensive ornamentation used --> that's 3 times used in short succession
- Fixed.
- After the 1906–1908 modifications --> In the Form section it was From 1906 to 1907. Is this a typo or is there another set of modifications I missed?
- Yes, this was a typo. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- between the 7th floor and the three-story roof --> earlier we had seventh story. Be consistent with MOS:NUM
- Done.
- self-glazed --> what is that?
- I have rephrased this to "glazed tiles", which are a type of ceramic tile. Not sure why "self-" was included. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- supported by brackets on the 35th floor. Cantilevers supported the balcony. --> would it be better to combine these 2 supports into one sentence?
- Done.
- Though the top of the lantern --> Why "Though"?
- Fixed.
- The tower was lit at night --> the whole tower or just the top?
- The entire tower was lit. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- except on the basements, first floor, and 14th through 16th floors --> I assume there they were 1 story?
- They were one to three stories, due to the irregular construction. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- H. W. Miller--> earlier we had J.J. Spurr without a space between the capitals
- Fixed.
- 9.5 acres --> can we have this in square feet, like all the others?
- Done. The original source gave the measurement in acres for some reason. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- a combined capacity of 15,000 U.S. gallons (57,000 l; 12,000 imp gal) --> don't need to do the conversions again I think
- Removed.
- The boilers had to generate 150,000,000 pounds (68,000,000 kg) of steam pressure to meet demand. --> pounds doesn't seem to be the right unit to me
- That's what the source says. I'm not sure whether it's a typo or whether this was intentional. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we can have an FA article with pressure expressed in pounds. If there is no other source it seems to me the sentence will have to go. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed it. It seemed out of place to me, in any case. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we can have an FA article with pressure expressed in pounds. If there is no other source it seems to me the sentence will have to go. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lobby was characterized as exuding "celestial radiance". --> by whom?
- Added.
- There was also retail space --> repetition of also
- Removed.
- The Singer Company's main offices on the 33rd through 35th floors, where there was a plethora of ornamental plaster --> verb missing
- Fixed.
- equivalent to $14 in 2020 --> perhaps update to 2021
- $25,352,000 in 2019 --> perhaps update to 2021
- For both of these, the conversion was conducted using the last full year of inflation data that is available, which should be 2020 for small dollar amounts and 2019 for large dollar amounts. The figures for the current year are not readily available in the template because of frequent changes in inflation rate. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- the Singer Company's offices on the center stories and rental office space on the middle six stories. --> aren't the center stories the same as the middle stories?
- Yes. There was a typo, the Singer Company's offices were on the two upper stories. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bourne bought three five-story structures --> Bourne personally? or for the company? I assumed Bourne personally but then a little further it says "By 1905, the Singer Company controlled most of the block along both Broadway and Liberty Street;" so now I'm not sure
- These were on behalf of the company. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Flagg was retained to design the fourteen-story Bourne Building --> a bit earlier it was 10-story .. please check for MOS:NUM consistency throughout
- Done.
- In conjunction with the tower's construction, in late 1905, Flagg --> It reads as if the year is referring to the tower's construction, which is not the case. Do we need this first clause at all?
- We do not. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion --> surpassing which building?
- I've added a mention of Philadelphia City Hall, the previous tallest building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- In 1961, Singer announced it would sell the building --> Huh? But they had already sold it in 1925 to the Utilities Power and Light Corporation .. did they back it back at some stage?
- I investigated the sources again. According to the newspaper sources from that period, the sale in 1925 was in fact only an agreement. The list of deed transfers does not indicate that any sale took place at that time. Presumably the buyer backed out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Diagram of the world's tallest buildings from 1908 to 1974 --> I like this diagram but can't read any of the text in it
- I resized it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- have setbacks as they rose --> this is not the first use of setback, so move link
- Done.
- mid-20th century --> is 1916 already mid-century?
- It was the early part of the century, but most of the subsequent skyscrapers built under this resolution were built from the 1920s to the 1950s. I've rephrased it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would add a few links: Roof lantern, dome, cornice, Indiana limestone, pediments, belt course, bracing, girder, water level, monogram,
- Done.
- After my first scan of the article I thought it could be trimmed as I was under the impression it contained quite a bit of unnecessary detail. However, when reading closely, I found most of the material relevant. For instance, it was interesting to read about the elevator operators, and the complexity of expansion. And I even got interested in what happened to the original entrance.
That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I am glad you found the article interesting. I'll respond to these comments in a bit. Epicgenius ( talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of your comments now. I added a little context under the "history" section, in regard to your note about context. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nice work on the new background section. Just check for MOS:NUM issues in this new text. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have done so. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nice work on the new background section. Just check for MOS:NUM issues in this new text. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of your comments now. I added a little context under the "history" section, in regard to your note about context. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
References formatting check (using this version):
- Check for missing publisher locations (just a few examples: Wiley, Amberley Publishing, Taylor & Francis, University of Chicago Press)
- #9: since we have J.J. in the body of the text, we should also have no space between initials here in A. M. Same issue in #170
- As this would break formatting consistency in other featured articles I have written, I have instead added back the initials consistently. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- #103: why does this not simply read Condit 1968, p. 119 ? Or actually a better question is Why is the Condit book listed in sources, since it is referenced only once, and all the other books referenced only once do not appear in Sources?
- I removed the redundant ref from the sources section.
- #112: It looks like you link publications on first mention only. So Brooklyn Daily Eagle should link here but not in #128
- Removed.
- Willis, Carol (1995). Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-5689-8044-7. --> I don't think that p.50 should be there
- Removed.
That's it for now. I plan to do a source spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Spot checks (using this version):
- #1 #16 #18 #19 #24 #25 #31 #47 #49 #74 #127 #141 all ok
- #7: mostly ok, but it just says East 23rd St, nothing about Madison or its district
- Fixed. Since I am around the Metropolitan Life Tower so frequently, I just took it for granted that this was a known fact. I have added another source. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- #20: I couldn't quite find the "30 feet"
- On page 10, the quoted text is "About the same time the project of extending the front of the original Singer Building northward on Broadway and erecting a tower of some forty odd stories, 30 feet back of this front, was accepted by the Singer Company, and the plans for this part of the building, henceforth called the 'Singer Building Addition,' or the 'Tower,' were begun." However, this is the setback of the tower, not the length of the additional frontage. I have corrected that now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: Thanks for the source review and spot checks. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Support from me. I hope you can attract some more reviewers soon. Edwininlondon ( talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Level Mountain
- Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is a comprehensive and well-researched account of Level Mountain, one of the largest volcanoes in Canada and one of the more obscure volcanoes on Earth. In late 2015, I rewrote and expanded this article greatly which was followed by a lot of copyediting that has lasted into this year. I have significant knowledge regarding the volcanoes of British Columbia, having researched them for the last 14 years or so. I have also brought other BC volcano articles up to FA class in the past and look forward to bringing this article about Level Mountain up to that standard. Cheers, Volcanoguy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Cropped clear betula pumila.png the caption needs to say that this photo is not taken at Level Mountain
- Done. Volcanoguy 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg How was this map created? Is it automatic generation or is there any creative element? I think this would make a better lead image than the one you currently have, as it's much more clear (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have never seen an FA article with a topographic map as a lead image. It also doesn't show the entire mountain. As for the map, it is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus
Going point-by-point through WP:WIAFA:
- 1a: With the caveat that I am not necessarily known for my prose skills, this seems fine to me.
- 1b: As far as I can tell, every topic I'd expect to be covered is covered here. Maybe details on climbing/mountaineering would be cool but in my experience reliable sources for such topics are hard to come by.
- There is nothing about climbing/mountaineering at Level Mountain, which isn't surprising due to its remoteness. Volcanoguy 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1c: I see some sources mentioned here are not used in the article - from the summaries I think many say too little about Level Mountain or only bespeak technical details, but I assume we checked this? I have to AGF on some sources as I don't have access to them. Inline citations used through the article.
- Yes I have already checked those sources. Most mention Level Mountain only briefly and aren't very useful to use as sources. A few in that list are already used in the article. Volcanoguy 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1d: I see no indication of NPOV problems, keeping the caveat about source access mentioned above in mind.
- 1e: Fits.
- 1f: The "drop a couple of sentences into Google" technique finds nothing untoward.
- 2a: Seems to fit; topics mentioned in the article also in the lead.
- 2b: Seems to fit.
- 2c: I see some citation errors and some citations have retrieved dates and others don't.
- What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcanoguy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- How about now? I didn't have those errors so I'm not sure if they're still there. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcanoguy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- 3: I think the ALT text on most images here is a little too much about what the image is and a little too little about what information it conveys. Does File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg have a source map? Images are appropriate for the sections they are in.
- The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did some improvements to the alt texts. Volcanoguy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcanoguy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- 4: Seems to fit.
Parking an uncommitted !vote here for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, provisional support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Ceranthor
- Lead
- "It is located 50 km (31 mi) north-northwest" - should be endash for north northwest
- Done. Volcanoguy 23:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "extensive north-south trending volcanic zone" same note as above.
- Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- "An extensive wild animal community thrives in the area of Level Mountain." - a very vague statement to make; I think this would read much better as "A wide variety of animal species thrives in the area of Level Mountain, with caribou being the most abundant."
- Agreed. Volcanoguy 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Humans had arrived at Level Mountain by the early 1900s, followed by geological studies of the mountain from the 1920s to the 1970s." - does including "had" before arrived add anything here? I'm not sure it does
- Removed. Volcanoguy 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Geology
- "The rocks of these two terranes are displaced and autochthonous in nature.[7]" - maybe misunderstanding, but aren't displaced and autochthonous opposites? If so, what are you trying to convey with this sentence
- You understood it correctly. It just meant that the Yukon–Tanana and Cassiar terranes consist of both displaced and autochthonous rocks. Since that sentence isn't needed, I've deleted it. Volcanoguy 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The most common and best mechanism used to explain NCVP volcanic activity" - best according to whom?
- Rewarded. Volcanoguy 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "This volcanic edifice forms a broad, oval-shaped, north-south trending lava plateau" - same note as above
- Done. Volcanoguy 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- "although some estimates of its areal extent are as much as 3,000 km2 (1,200 sq mi).[3][4]" - is there any brief explanation in these two sources about the discrepancy here? If so, I think it's worth noting here
- No there isn't. Volcanoguy 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The other planar fracture, Nahlin, is an east-dipping thrust fault" - what do you mean by east-dipping? Unclear to me.
- Dipping is already linked in the article; see strike and dip. It's basically a thrust fault that is tilting towards the east. Volcanoguy 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "A series of U-shaped valleys have been carved into the volcano" - Since you say "a series OF ... valleys" this should be "has been carved"
- I don't think so. "A series of" implies that there's more than one, thus plural. Volcanoguy 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Level Mountain has experienced volcanic eruptions sporadically for the last 15 million years, making it the most persistent volcano of the NCVP." - Not sure how I feel about the use of persistent here; is there a better term we could use instead? Maybe the longest living or something more along those lines?
- Replaced "persistent" with "long-lived". Volcanoguy 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Renewed volcanism sent a series of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit and have a total thickness of 76 m (249 ft). " - second half of the sentence does not match grammatically
- Reworded to "Renewed volcanism deposited a 76 m (249 ft) thick sequence of massive ankaramite lava flows over the second unit." Volcanoguy 01:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "These lava flows, comprising the third unit, are spheroidally weathered." - spheroidally weathered? What does that mean?
- Linked. Volcanoguy 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The liquidus temperatures of these flows were in excess of 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) with viscosities as low as 100,000 poise." - Link liquidus
- Done. Volcanoguy 04:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Geography
- "The caribou at Level Mountain form a herd that is part of a larger population ranging west of the Dease River " - ranging doesn't work here
- Changed "ranging" to "extending". Volcanoguy 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Human history
- "there is a human population of more than 630 who live within 100 km (62 mi) of the volcano.[2]" - any more details on this?
- No. Volcanoguy 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Level Mountain was demonstrated in the 1920s as a possible source" - need a better verb than demonstrated
- What would be a better word to use? Volcanoguy 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The recognition of Level Mountain as a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes has given it status as a separate volcanic centre.[27]" - I think you're missing an "its" after "it" and before "status"
- I don't think so. Volcanoguy 15:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Accessibility
- Looks fine.
- Monitoring and volcanic hazards
- "Like other volcanoes in the NCVP, Level Mountain is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." - too wordy, just say "it is not monitored closely enough to ascertain its activity level"
- Done. Volcanoguy 00:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
All this from my first pass. Think the geology section is a bit jargon-y and dense for a lay reader. Will try to keep making small changes while these are discussed/addressed. ceranthor 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ceranthor: I've already tried avoiding jargon as much as I could but it's not possible. Geology is a technical subject, something not everyone can understand. This ain't Simple English Wikipedia. Volcanoguy 02:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support will try and run through and copyedit once more, but I think this is well-written and comprehensive. ceranthor 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
TRM
General Motors companion make program
- Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days."
General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here.
Thank you for your consideration of this FAC. If it passes, it'll be my first non-Four Award FA and my third overall. As always with my FACs, minor cleanups and tweaks (lint, ref number swaps, etc.) are encouraged to be done yourself rather than explicitly resolved here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported by the text. For example, the lead claims that "companion makes were also used to increase the sales of their respective divisions by selling cars that cost less to produce"; the text states that they would increase sales AND cost less, which is a slightly different claim
- I feel like the difference is minor, but if you insist I can reword it.
- Work titles like Automobile Magazine should not be in
|publisher=
, and publishers like National Museum of American History shouldn't be in work-title parameters- Those two specifically have been fixed, let me know if anything else of that nature needs addressing.
- How are you ordering Works cited?
- By alphabetical order of short cite
- Is there a reason to use "Encyclopedia" as a short cite rather than authors?
- Changed to Ludvigsen et al.
- How are you deciding when to include publication location?
- I explicitly decline to include it in newspapers where the location is already in the title and well-known (in this article the Ottawa Citizen but not the Grand Island Independent, but in general the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times are other examples) per the spirit of USCITIES, and I omit it when I can't reasonably deduce the location (websites, for one). Thanks for asking!
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility - add row headers (!) and row scopes (scope="row") to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done, I think. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I added the row headers for you. Heartfox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5
- Is it necessary to clarify that GMC were owned by GM at that time? Have GMC ever not been owned by GM?
- I just wanted to set the tone for the era; I've removed it.
- I'm not really sure how it would be best to handle the confusing American "model year" concept. I think the initial footnote does a lot to help though.
- Agreed, and thanks. There's a lot about car culture, especially American car culture, that is confusing to the uninitiated, and I tried to strike the balance between not explaining enough and loading unnecessary details onto the page.
- When the lead mentions "GM's hierarchy" is that referring to the pricing of the cars or their priorities in terms of marketing, R&D budgets, etc.?
- Pricing, duly clarified.
- It might help to clarify that the archaic sense of "coach" is being used since this is a motor industry focused article.
- I added "horse-drawn" to it.
- Is there a particular reason why the companion make cars would cost less to produce or do sources not go into detail about that?
- The source does not go into such details, I'm afraid, although Vikings were above Oldsmobiles.
- There's a large number of jargon terms when discussing the LaSalle body styles that earlier links don't really help explain, particularly regarding the different types of sedans (the sedan article probably needs a substantial overhaul).
- I tried to link Car body style (itself an orange-tagged mess) to slightly clarify what I'm talking about here, but ultimately I am not responsible for articles other than this one I'm afraid.
- I understand that the "
six-cylinder inline engine
" is used the first time for the sake of wikilinking; but I do have to ask whether this is the standard usage in American English? In British English "straight-six engine" would almost always be used.- "Straight-six" is also used in America, and in the sources themselves, but I thought "six-cylinder inline engine" is clearer and less jargony for non-car people.
- Since I can't access the sources I'll take it on good faith that the source is referring specifically to brake horsepower and not to some other variety of horse power. It's worth being careful with engines of this vintage to check that they're not referencing some now obscure units when power comes up.
- I rechecked Kimes and trimmed the "brake" parts where necessary.
- Some more context might be needed for the Death Valley to Pikes Peak drive. Was this just a successful marketing claim or was the car particularly praised by independent sources for its ability to climb hills without issues relative to its competition?
- The claim comes from Kimes, which is the "Standard catalog" of American cars, so I think the latter.
- A brief explanation of Opel's relationship to GM at the time might be helpful when they come up; particularly given Opel are now owned by Peugeot.
- I just said it was GM's European subsidiary.
- Is the "dean of design" reference regarding Harley Earl describing a position he held within GM?
- It's an honorary title; duly marked as such.
- Is "
[Pontiac] remained in production until 2010
" standard usage in American English? This comes across as saying that the original 1920s Pontiac model was in production until 2010 to a Brit, which obviously is untrue.- Slightly changed to clarify.
Mostly nitpicks from me. Provided this passes source reviews and the like I would gladly support raising this to featured status. A well written and interesting article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Mr.choppers
- Support — Not an expert reviewer, but I know a bit about the topic. Thanks for calling me "prominent," flattery will get you everywhere. The article reads well and there are ample citations from authors with whom I am familiar. I added another Ludvigsen reference as I find it interesting that the Marquette engine went on to power the Opel Blitz, which ended up the workhorse of the German armed forces during WWII.
- I do have two questions, which may or may not actually be answerable:
- 1. What were the reasons for the market positionings of the various new brands? All except Viking were priced lower than their "mother brands," was this merely a result of the price gaps to be filled?
- 2. Why was there no Chevrolet companion make?
- It might be worth pointing out that in the 1920s, many US brands (including the GM roster, obviously) did not have models within the brands. I.e., Buick or Oldsmobile or Oakland were single lines of cars, using one chassis (often in two different lengths) and one engine. This seems odd today, when we are used to there being a Yaris beneath the Corolla beneath the Avensis beneath the Camry beneath the Crown and so on. This would go some way towards explaining GM's perceived need for different brands rather than just creating a smaller line of Buicks or a more Senior Oldsmobile.
- I am aware that there may not be any references for these (and my view of the matters may be incorrect), but my support for FA status for this article is in no way contingent on your answering these particular ramblings. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! As for your comments:
- I don't know the market positions, but would probably assume that they were simply due to the gaps to be filled.
- I also don't know why Chevrolet didn't receive one, but my speculation (which I don't find likely to find a source for) is that GMC already existed as a "companion make" of sorts; either that, or Chevrolet was too cheap to have anything "below" it.
- I considered adding the "one model per make" info but couldn't find a good source for it unfortunately; I considered a Car and Driver article from 2000 that the original Thunderbird was Ford's first "second car", but that seems like synthesis.
- Otherwise, I'm glad you liked it! – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
Well past three weeks in and this has only picked up the one general support. Consider this a heads up that it needs to move further towards a consensus to support by the four week point or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Does the two-week rule still apply if archiving is due to lack of participation rather than any opposes? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback." Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Trying to get more reviewers
@Sammy D III, Eddaido, and Mr.choppers: You seem like prominent car Wikipedians. If you are interested in this, please look at the article at your earliest convenience. If not, it would be great for you three to ping other Wikipedians who might be interested in reviewing this article. @Epicgenius, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt: are also FAC regulars I know who could provide feedback, even/especially if they are not car people, although if they are too busy that is more than understandable. I've also put this on the WP:FACURGENT. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will give a review, but it may be several days. My time is limited at present.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: I can also take a look, but since I have real life commitments, it may also take me a while, perhaps a week or so. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Comments I've made a few hands-on edits; feel free to revert.
- "to appeal to different consumers with different incomes" I might strike the first "different" as unneeded.
- Done.
- "Durant was expelled from GM in 1910 after over-aggressive expansion; he had over-leveraged the fledgling company in making these acquisitions, and was removed by the board of directors at the behest of the bankers who backed the loans to keep GM in business." The end of this sentence seems a bit muddled.
- "The action of the bankers was partially influenced by the brief Panic of 1910–1911." I might be more direct, thus: "The bankers acted in part because of the brief Panic of 1910-1911."
- I merged those two sentences.
- "daily driver and racecourse tester" What might these be?
- A "daily driver", in common parlance, is the car you use to just get around on a daily basis. Don also used the Viking to test the terrain of his (ultimately unsuccessful) record attempt; I have reworded the sentence to clarify.
- "Death Valley, the lowest point in California," Or in the US, actually.
- I didn't add that information and think it's a bit extraneous; I have removed it unless you have strong feelings to the contrary.
- " It possessed distinctive styling, with a portly shape that led to its sobriquet of "the pregnant Buick" and a herringbone radiator to distinguish it from other GM makes.[18][38]" Consider adding at least one comma (after Buick and/or radiator)
- I put one after "radiator" since that logically makes more sense even though my diction "wants" to put it after "Buick".
- " ill-suited to build" odd phrasing
- I think that was already fixed by you.
- That's about it. Interesting. Some awkwardness of phrasing remaining which is surprising this late in a FAC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll try to look into that, thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- "to appeal to different consumers with different incomes" I might strike the first "different" as unneeded.
Comments by Epicgenius
Here are my initial comments.
Lead:
five car[a] brands, or "makes".
- Footnote [a] seems weird to me, I guess you mean passenger cars?- I do, and added.
The companion makes were LaSalle introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac, Marquette introduced in 1929 for 1930[c] to supplement Buick, Pontiac introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland, and Viking introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile
- I would reword this using semicolons to separate the different elements of the list. For instance, "The companion makes were LaSalle, introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac; Marquette, introduced in 1929 for the 1930 model year[c] to supplement Buick; Pontiac, introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland; and Viking, introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile."- Done
- "at the expense of the Ford Motor Company" - Nothing wrong with this per se, just that from a financial background this initially struck me as a bit strange, since expense does imply a monetary expenditure in that context.
- I've shortened it to just "Ford" but am fine with either.
- That works. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've shortened it to just "Ford" but am fine with either.
By the late 1920s, it was felt that there were excessive gaps in this ladder
- leadership felt this?I don't know,(Turns out it was Sloan, but still) I've said just "GM"
its popularity exploded after its introduction, and led
- The comma is unnecessary, as "led to the discontinuation of Oakland after 1931". If you say "...after its introduction, and it led...", then the comma could be included. However, if the portion after ", and" would not be a separate sentence,- Comma removed
Background and concept:
Durant founded GM in an effort to replicate
- Since you mentioned that Durant founded GM in the previous sentence, the reader already knows this. So you can just say "Durant intended to replicate..."- I wanted to make clear that he used GM for that, so "Durant intended for GM to replicate..."
Durant was unable to replicate his business model
- The phrase "replicate his business model" was repeated from the previous sentence. Not a big deal, though, just something that stick out to me.- Works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Changed to "apply"
willy-nilly
- This does not seem as professional as an alternative such as "arbitrarily".- Changed to "arbitrarily"
Durant created Chevrolet shortly thereafter, and
By the late 1920s, Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923
- I would suggest reordering this chronologically, e.g. "Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, detected several gaps in GM's ladder by the late 1920s..."- Done, with a comma added.
More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback so far! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. Here are some more comments I have. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback so far! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Launch:
The name dated back to 1893
- "back" in this case is unnecessary and "dated back" can be just "dated".- Done
By the 1929 model year the engine, a flathead, was able to make 60 brake horsepower (bhp) (45 kW)
- For me, the fact that the template wraps is a bit weird, but that's not an issue. I think you can put a comma after "By the 1929 model year" or move it to the end of the sentence.- I tweaked it slightly
- "custom cars for Hollywood actors and producers on the side" - Not really an issue, but "on the side" sounds somewhat colloquial.
- Changed to "also made"
spring 1926
- Per MOS:SEASON, "spring" should probably be avoided unless it is from the source. I know it's a North American spring, but still.- It is from the source, which says "early spring", and I think it helps chronologically.
with either a 128 in (3,300 mm) or 134 in (3,400 mm) wheelbase
- I would rephrase this as "with a wheelbase of either 128 in or 134 in", as the current wording does seem a bit unwieldy. These are two versions with slightly different wheelbases.- Done
It was initially priced at $1,595 but by the end of 1929 had become worth $1,695.
- I would put {{inflation}} or a similar template. I know you include it below, but it may be useful here too. Also, has it "become worth" $1,695 (which implies a context such as on the secondhand market), or did the sale price change?- It "had" become worth that, meaning that it became more expensive during the year. Inflation footnotes added.
from Death Valley to Pikes Peak
- Do you know how far that is?- I don't, and I don't think it's particularly important; the scale of the achievement can be deduced from clicking on the links.
- I only mention this because for readers who aren't familiar with US geography, a journey from California to Colorado may not mean much. But I agree with you - it wasn't important to me so much as I was just curious if you knew. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't, and I don't think it's particularly important; the scale of the achievement can be deduced from clicking on the links.
Demise and legacy
having failed to resuscitate Buick's sales,[46] it was discontinued at the end of the 1930 model year
- While "it" refers to the Marquette, the layout of the sentence makes it appear as though this refers to the Depression. I would thus say "The Marquette similarly suffered from the Depression" or something similar.- Tweaked
Pontiac would have the opposite destiny.
- I'm not so sure how encyclopedic the tone is; I get what the sentiment is, but it sounds unusual to me. Personally, I would also say something like "In contrast, Pontiac was profitable...".Pontiac earned the distinction of being the only GM make
- Here you can just say "Pontiac was the only GM make..."- I like these two phrases, they seem to have some character for me.
- I understand. I'm just saying it could be pointed out further down the line, but for me it isn't such a big deal. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I like these two phrases, they seem to have some character for me.
That is all I have. I should note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, and good luck on the Cup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I will support this nomination now. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
- File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- OTRS has added permissions.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Ceoil
Know York quite well and spent a few days there during my honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)
Quibbles:
- The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"
- The "for public sale" was to exclude the 15 assay pieces, which were either tested to destruction, melted or sold to the 1937 assay commissioners. Tweaked.
- what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"
- Done, more or less.
- oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?
- I changed the other "oldest" instead.
- Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...
- I like the existing language, which I've used in other articles, better.
- The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered
- Fine.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"
- Tweaked somewhat differently.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- an explosion of ?
- Tweaked.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- more non deal breaking comments shortly Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and support. I've made the changes per the above.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1636, York County was formed, the first and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States" - Is it worth briefly noting that Maine itself technically didn't exist at that time, as it was part of Massachusetts until the early 19th century?
- I'm not sure that's necessary here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do we know why Taber objected?
- No. Working directly from Congressional Record there.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The original coin holder in which up to five York County half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $50 to $125, and if accompanied by original insert up to $150, depending on condition" - Source is almost ten years old, recommend adding as as of date here.
- Did that, more or less.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Excellent work here; I couldn't find much to nitpick. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, source reliability, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support by Moise
Hi Wehwalt, I'll review this. Here are some comments:
- Lead: "the remainder was sold": I would say "were sold" because coins is plural, but if you disagree this is no dealbreaker for me.
- Changed to "were sold".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Background and inception: Does "senior among them" mean "first among them". If so, could I propose "several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, first among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, initially struck in 1926"? (I assume "senior among them" doesn't mean "most importantly among them" as that would sound subjective.)
- It means that the Oregon Trail was first struck in 1926, the other coins referred to came along later (1934 and 1935). It's a simple way of saying it I've used in other articles, other ways seem messier.--- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar was one of several early commemoratives issued despite its local significance": I initially was confused what "despite its local significance" refers to, but I see it is explained a bit farther down. I think it would be clearer to reword this as "despite its lack of national significance". Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done, more or less.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Design: "The obverse depicts Brown's Garrison, located next to the Saco River... The reverse depicts the York County seal." This seems to repeat details mentioned just a bit above in the Preparation section. I'm not sure what the best solution would be if you feel the details are needed in both sections. One idea would be in the Design section drop the detail of Saco River (I don't believe it's actually shown on the coin?) and say something like "On the obverse four sentries are seen in front of Brown's Garrison, with one of them mounted,[29] making the York County half dollar the third U.S. coin, after the Lafayette dollar (dated 1900) and the Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar (1925), to depict a horse." In this way the repeated detail about Brown's Garrison is mentioned less directly and unobtrusively than "depicts Brown's Garrison". Likewise maybe the detail about the York County seal on the reverse could be slipped in less directly.
- Done, more or less.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Release, distributing, and collecting: "Senator White, in a March 15, 1937 letter to Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross, stated that the committee had erred, thinking only 25,000 pieces were authorized": Presumably it was the committee that thought only 25,000 pieces were authorized, but grammatically in the current structure of the sentence it may not be clear whether it was White or the committee that thought this. Also (if one assumes it's clear that it was the committee that thought this), did White know/presume that the reason the committee had only struck 25,000 pieces was because they believed that was all that was authorized, or did his letter only state that the committee had erred, and he found out the reason afterwards? The current structure of the sentence makes the timeline a bit fuzzy, and the reader may wonder.
- The letter from Senator White seems inconsistent with the letter to O'Reilly. I can't explain it and commemorative coins are ill-studied, this one in particular. The source presents the letter but does not comment on.it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Those are all of my comments for now. I'll likely give another quick read-through when you've addressed these. It's a very interesting article; I especially enjoyed the controversy about a commemoration of non-national importance getting a coin, and enjoyed the quotation from William F. Sheehan. Moisejp (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I've started my second read-through early since I have time now and you've already addressed some of the points.
- 1. "The commemorative was approved largely due to the connections that many of the coin's sponsors had, including numismatist Walter P. Nichols, who was at the time the Treasurer of the Committee for Commemoration of the Founding of York County"; 2. "By 1936, thanks to enabling legislations put forth by accommodating Congressmen, it was possible—or nearly so—to get a coin struck to observe a town picnic... Although there was no paper trail showing payoffs from local promoters, the fix was in and hardly anyone cared": Are these two ideas (which are far apart from each other in the text) related, and would it be worthwhile to acknowledge (or, as the case may be, clearly refute) a possible relation or similarity of the ideas, for any readers who may wonder about any link. Moisejp (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've addressed this in dealing with the matter below.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you decide to do something with my idea above, there might be an opportunity at the same time to link "The national response to and interest in York County’s 300th anniversary could generously be described as, 'Huh?'" " with what is said about this in the Background and inception section. But I understand the nuance is slightly different here: Rick Sear seems to be saying among other things that nobody cared nationally about in particular the bribing for the York County proceedings because York County was so local and far away. Moisejp (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there was an implication of bribery, just of influence. I've put the quotations together, but it may be overkill.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've addressed these issues. Many thanks for your review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your changes look good, and I'm happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
References
- #9: Is there no volume/issue number? Is 29 the page you're citing to, or is it a one-page article?
- I've added the volume/issue number and it's one page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the volume/issue number. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oops. Obviously I goofed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the volume/issue number. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added the volume/issue number and it's one page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #12: It's in the public domain, so should be available online somewhere.
- #13: Ditto.
- #16: Ditto.
- #18: Ditto.
- #19: Ditto.
- #20: Ditto. Also, why is Congressional Record italicized here, but not elsewhere?
- 12 through 20 all addressed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #21: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
- Added. One page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #33: Could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
- (you mean 22). Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, I see that one ProQuest source uses the "via=ProQuest" parameter, but the others say "via Congressional ProQuest" in the publisher parameter. I would change these all so that they use the "via" parameter (either "via=ProQuest" or "via=Congressional ProQuest"). -- Usernameunique ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- (you mean 22). Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #27: Coinsite should be the name of the source, not in the name of the page title.
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #28: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
- Added. One page article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- #30: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
- Added. One page article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources
- Bullowa 1938: Needs ", NY" for consistency.
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sheehan 1975: Volume/issue?
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Slabaugh 1975: Whitman Publishing could take a link.
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- May 29, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
- March 11, 1936 source: Ditto and ditto.
- May 21, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, is this the same thing as footnote 13, above? And should the United States Government Publishing Office be mentioned?
- It doesn't say that. I did searches on each of these and did not see these documents available.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, what's the difference between these three sources and the Congressional Record sources in "References"?
- The Congressional Record is the transcript of the debates of Congress. These three sources are transcripts of committee hearings, or reports of committees on bills, and are less widely available.
- Vermeule 1971: Harvard University Press could take a link.
- Done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeoman 2020: Any reason there's an LLC at the end of Whitman Publishing here, but not for Slabaugh 1975?
- I know Whitman has changed hands over time, no doubt it's related to that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noted. I'll work on these probably this weekend. Many thanks for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Congressional Record cites have been italicized and also linked to PD sources.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've covered everything.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Usernameunique? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild & Wehwalt, two minor comments above. Signed off once they're addressed. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- All done now, Usernameunique. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, I'd move "via Congressional ProQuest" from the "publisher=" parameter to the "via=" parameter. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- All done now, Usernameunique. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild & Wehwalt, two minor comments above. Signed off once they're addressed. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Usernameunique That's done too.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Second Battle of Newtonia
- Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Having been given permission for a second nom, here comes another minor ACW cavalry fight. On the run after defeats at Westport and Mine Creek, Price's Confederates halted at Newtonia before entering the wasteland of 1864 northwestern Arkansas. Pursuing Union cavalry caught up, attacked, and got a little more than the bargained for before reinforcements came up and the Confederates fell back. Both sides claimed victory, but history has attributed the win to the Union. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Source review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- All infobox entries should start with an upper case letter.
- Done for the "near Newtonia" one, which I think it where the issue is
- "he instead began moving his force west towards Kansas City" seems a little clumsy. 'instead he moved his force west towards Kansas City'?
- Done
- "Price ordered the withdrawal of his main army, and ordered Shelby". Any way to avoid "ordered ... ordered"?
- Rephrased
- "Blunt's smaller line". Perhaps "smaller" → 'shorter'?
- Done
- "supplies and soldiers were lost to capture." "lost to capture" → 'captured'.
- Done
- "Claims of execution of prisoners" → 'Claims of the execution of prisoners'.
- Done
- "arrived on the field". A bit jargony, and not very informative - just where did they arrive?
- Rephrased, and added the direction from which Ford's men reached the battlefield.
- "Blunt personally fought with the 16th Kansas Cavalry during this stage of the fighting." I suggest moving this to the last sentence of this paragraph.
- Yes, it makes more sense to state that Blunt arrived before it is mentioned that he is fighting - not sure why I didn't notice that. Moved.
- "the entire Union army was upon him". "upon" → 'attacking'.
- Done
- "Regardless, Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." What is "Regardless" trying to communicate?
- I have no idea why I added that word. Removed.
- "aligned left to right in the order of" → 'from left to right'.
- Done
- "Shelby aligned his men". This may be a USEng thing, but I find the use of "aligned" confusing. Here and in later uses. (What does it mean anyway?)
- In USEng, this would indicate that Shelby formed his men into a line. I've rephrased all instances
- "In total, Shelby had about 2,000 or 3,500 men on the field" This seems to hide a debate. Any chance of some detail as to who said which, when, ideally why, and possibly alterna'e break downs of these numbers?
- Made a little clearer. No breakdowns of these numbers are really given. To me it looks like two historians spitballing numbers based on vague/unreliable source, as neither explicitly states where they got their numbers, and given what had happened to Price's army in the last 5 days, I don't think anybody really knew or cared exactly how many men were around.
- "The Union lines fell all the way back to the Ritchey Farm" → 'The Union lines fell back all the way to the Ritchey Farm'.
- Done
- "Even after this lined was formed". "lined"?
- Fixed. I'm a bad copyeditor.
- "temporarily threw the Confederates into surprise." I don't think that one can be thrown into surprise - although I like the image. 'caught the Confederates by surprise and temporarily threw them into confusion'?
- Rephrased
- "forced marched". This is a noun, not a verb.
- Rephrased. I didn't think that was grammar, but I kinda hoped it was for some reason
- "These newly arrived guns fire 22 shots". "fire" → 'fired'.
- Fixed. Probably shoulda got this copyedited.
- "the artillery advantage growing more disparate". An advantage cannot grow more disparate. A 'differential' can, or an advantage can become more 'marked', for example.
- Rephrased
- "In addition, the modern historian Mark A. Lause". Delete "In addition". Possibly reinsert after "participated in the action".
- Done
- "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle." I assume this relates to the earlier part of the sentence, but you don't tell us how.
- @Gog the Mild: - I have no idea how to address this. Lause states "At least parts of Price's other two divisions [Marmaduke and Fagan] also pitched in to the fight ...[evidence for Fagan's participation] ... At least one commander from General John S. Marmaduke's division also filed a report on its fighting there." So Lause seems to be implying that this report is (basically all) the justification for assuming that Marmaduke's men participated. Lause lumps all of the footnotes for this paragraph together, so its unclear what exactly he is referring to. As other sources do not mention the involvement of Marmaduke's men, this statement is attributed to Lause, but I'm not sure how to draw the connection in the article without OR-ing when Lause is vague on this. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.
- I have removed it.
- Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.
- "they occupied the town itself". Delete "itself".
- Removed
- "were probably similar or even less than those of the Union". Why "even"?
- Removed
- "and that Union officer Richard J. Hinton provided a figure of 114 casualties". For which side?
- Union. Added
- "The American Battlefield Trust estimated 250 and 400". Should that be "estimated" → 'estimates'? Or have they since changed their mind?
- Yes, it should be estimates. Changed.
- "due to the Price's army's inability to transport them." Delete "the".
- Done
Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- All good. Your one query responded to. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Support by Zawed
This looks to be in good shape. Just a few nitpicks:
- The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the background section uses the word 'war' 3 times. Suggest swapping the 2nd one out for 'conflict'?
- Done; I've also removed the third one as well.
- Battle: suggest a group of soldiers of his brigade to meet the threat.? This would provide antecedence for the mention of his brigade in the 3rd para of this section
- Done
- Battle: suggest ...Curtis described as "badly cut up".
CurtisHe helped to rally...? Curtis is used three times in close succession- Done
- Battle: Lause believes that part of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate division participated in the action in addition. I'm not sure what " the action" is here - the move to the woods or the battle itself? Regardless, suggest "also participated" and deleting "in addition".
- The battle. Clarified
- Aftermath: been driven back 3 miles (5 km)
- Done
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Zawed: - Thanks for the review; all points have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Heartfox
- "In September 1864, Confederate Major General Sterling Price had entered the state of Missouri" → from where; with who?
- Clarified
- I believe you forgot to write "entered" in the sentence "On September 19, Price the state from Arkansas with the Army of Missouri."
- Yes, added now.
- I believe you forgot to write "entered" in the sentence "On September 19, Price the state from Arkansas with the Army of Missouri."
- Clarified
- "Price's column halted" → I think column should be linked; also in "On September 19, Price's column entered the state."
- I've simply used a different word. Column has a technical military sense, but it's also used frequently in a more general meaning to mean a sizable organized body of troops. Because it's used in an informal sense here, I've simply swapped for a different word.
- "he ordered Shelby to provide a rear guard" → Without reading the lead, I don't know who Shelby is.
- Glossed
- "McLain's battery"; "helped to rally the Colorado battery" → is "battery" supposed to be capitalized? I'm not really familiar with this.
- In these two contexts, it's not a proper formal name, so lowercase is fine
- "An armed mob after Marmiton River" → Can "Marmiton River" link to something? Heartfox (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Glossed
- Heartfox - Thanks for taking the time to review this; I've replied to all points above. Sorry about the lack of glossing in places; this is part of a multiple-article series of mine, and they're all on very similar topics which leads to me forgetting what I've linked and what I haven't in individual ones. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would add basic alt texts for the map images, like alt=refer to adjacent text. Heartfox (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is done. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Support. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records. It is fresh from GAN and I believe it to be up to FAC standards. As ever, any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review and source review—pass
Image licensing looks good. Sources look OK but I still have to do a full source check (the Rogers 1994 ref is OK though) (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Checking Wagner refs
- Wagner 2006c. Needs pg#
- Added.
- Wagner 2006a, p. 20. This pg# must be wrong because it doesn't match the cited entries. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild Did you get to this? (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe, I did, realised that I had completely missed referencing the final paragraph and then forgot to fix it. Apologies, and thanks for the reminder. Now appropriately cited and I am wondering what I was on when I supposedly did my pre-FAC check of the referencing. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wagner 2006c, pp. 142–143. —also does not match the page range given in the source section for Wagner 2006c
- Grr! Corrected. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous Charles of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy" - Is this Charles of Navarre the same Charles II of Navarre the English tried to cooperate with earlier?
- Yes.
- Which are the new alliances cemented by the chevauchée? Is it the Norman nobles who are mentioned to be turning to the English in the prelude material?
- Rementioned in the first sentence of Aftermath. I have tweaked the language for clarity.
- For the Curry ref, are both the (2002) and the (published 13 November 2002) needed?
- Scratches head. It's the 2002 edition. Dunno where 2012 came from. Fixed. Thanks.
- With Jaques, you provide both state and city, while with Madden, you only provide the state. For consistency's sake, would it be possibly to add the city in Minnesota for Madden?
- Nope. The place of publication is not given.
- Not seeing the start date explicitly referenced as 22 June in the body except for the indirect statement that the 22 days ended on July 13. Is it possible to work this exact start date into the body?
- Done.
Good work, anticipate supporting on most criteria. Hog Farm Talk 14:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hog Farm. All done. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hog Farm. All done. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Dumelow
Looks good to me. I had a few minor comments from a quick read through - Dumelow (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- "John attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by Edward III, at the same time assembling a field army; he was unable to, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" The last part reads a bit strange to me, though I am not sure how to reword it. Potentially the reader may be confused as to whether John was unable to strengthen the garrisons or assemble the army or both
- After checking the source I have expanded to "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money."
- "The English expedition to Normandy was intended to be carried out with the cooperation of the French magnate Charles II of Navarre" this is the first mention of Normandy, we've only previously stated that the English were planning offensives in "northern France and Gascony". Should this be "English expedition to northern France"?
- Clumsy phrasing by me when I copy edited it down from something more understandable. Tweaked.
- "Arras rebelled and killed loyalists". Reads a bit strange to me, perhaps "the inhabitants of Arras" or similar?
- Tweaked.
- "The French took control of most of Normandy and laid siege to those fortifications which refused to surrender.[36] Charles, as the Duke of Normandy, took charge of suppressing these holdouts.[37] He took personal command of the siege of Évreux, the capital of his holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux." The reader could be confused here as to which Charles we were talking about (the dauphin or Navarre) as both were mentioned recently and we haven't mentioned the Duke of Normandy title before.
- Clarified and introduced better.
- "Houdetot also ordered assaults, which also failed" repetition of also, could perhaps be avoided.
- This was deliberate, to emphasis that the same course of action was followed with similar (and by implication) unsurprising results. I could of course change it if you don't like it.
- "Horses transported in the ships of the day needed several days rest to recover, otherwise they would break down" feels a bit out of place. Are we explaining that the English couldn't act immediately upon landing? Might fit better elsewhere
- I was explaining why a small number of men arrived in a large number of ships 17 days before the main force, as otherwise a reader might consider that a silly thing to do. So it seems appropriately located to me.
- "When Lancaster marched east, John believed he was striking for Rouen, and moved his army there.[49] He took steps to block the fords across the Seine, in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais." Might be better as "...he also took steps to block the fords..."
- Done.
- "The French army, which Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers", ", is this the same French army as was at Condé-sur-Iton? If so, we've already established it was "much stronger than the English force, with perhaps ten times the number of men"
- All of the information on the size of the French army grouped at first mention.
- "The three-week expedition had been very successful: The two besieged towns had been re-victualled" maybe "two of the besieged towns" or just "two besieged towns" as Tillières-sur-Avre was not resupplied
- Good point. Changed.
- Thanks Dumelow, you have picked up a number of issues which I should have, and that is appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on prose. Changes/explanations are all good for me. I think you're missing an "it" in "It was much stronger than the English force; Rogers describes as "vastly superior ... in numbers" with perhaps ten times the number of men"? I think what threw me on the horse bit was that there was no previous mention that the ships were carrying horses, perhaps this could be stated? - Dumelow ( talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Dumelow, you have picked up a number of issues which I should have, and that is appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- "it" added; number of horses added in appropriate place. Thanks for both.
- Thanks Dumelow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Catlemur
I previously reviewed this article at GAN. My comments focus on prose and the parts of MoS I am familiar with.
- "With French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy" - I think this falls under MOS:IDIOM.
- Tweaked. ("With French finances and morale low after Crécy".)
- Perhaps you could wikilink dauphin to Dauphin of France.
- D'oh! Done.
- "The Norman nobles who had not been arrested sent to Navarre for reinforcements, where Charles' younger brother Louis was administering the country." - I think this sentence warrants an extra comma after arrested.
- Done, although in all seriousness that renders it unintelligible to my eye. That said, I am with Liz Truss on commas ;-) . I mean, try reading the sentence without the section which is between the commas.
- I am usually of a different school of thought on commas than Gog, but do agree with them that adding the comma after arrested makes it more difficult to read. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done, although in all seriousness that renders it unintelligible to my eye. That said, I am with Liz Truss on commas ;-) . I mean, try reading the sentence without the section which is between the commas.
--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Catlemur, this is good of you. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on prose. All issues I raised have been addressed.-- Catlemur ( talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Query for the coordinators
Ian Rose, @WP:FAC coordinators: This one has three supports and image and source passes and has been running for nearly four weeks. I realise that it needs a look over by a non-MilHist editor, but meanwhile, could I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, should be okay. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mind you I feel like making it conditional on the next one having "chevauchée " in the title as well -- never heard the term before this series of articles and now I really look forward to seeing (and saying) it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Support by Wehwalt
- Support. Seems to meet all the criteria, though I know little of this century. A few minor points.
- "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal." I might consider moving the 1337 date to the start of the sentence, because to that point the reader has no idea what the timeframe is.
- Good point. Done.
- "Lancaster's small army was delayed for several days at Montebourg, setting off on 22 June[45] and arriving in Carentan, 25 miles (40 km) to the south, on the 23rd." I would suggest instead of the final clause, that "the next day" be placed after "arriving".
- Done.
- "in the belief Lancaster may have been heading for Calais" Calais is linked to the article on same, but there is a previous mention of Calais that is not linked to anything.
- D'oh! Corrected.
--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Wehwalt, much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Assassination of Talat Pasha
- Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Talat_Pasha_cropped.jpg: for the purposes of the EU tag, on what date was this made publicly available?
- It appears to be anonymous, or at least Library of Congress doesn't know who the author is. It was published by Neue Photographische Gesellschaft so I used a no author disclosure PD tag.
- Okay, but that tag requires that it was published over 70 years ago. Do we know that to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Neue Photographische Gesellschaft shut down in 1948,[36] so if it was published by them it must have been more than 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, but that tag requires that it was published over 70 years ago. Do we know that to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to be anonymous, or at least Library of Congress doesn't know who the author is. It was published by Neue Photographische Gesellschaft so I used a no author disclosure PD tag.
- File:Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg: which rationale from the Austrian tag is believed to apply, and what's the status of this work in the US?
- I believe that this is considered a simple photograph as it doesn't "involve artistic interpretations". If so, it was either unpublished or else published in Pietschmann's 1940 book, so the copyright would have expired by 1996.
- File:Talat_Pasha_cable_of_29_August_1915.png: does the source give any further info on the provenance of this work?
- No, although I'm pretty sure it was found in an archive.
- File:William_Tell_LCCN2003689314_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
- The source doesn't say exactly, just that it is free use. In this case the author was S. Zickel who apparently founded his own publishing house by 1870.[37]
- File:Ein_Zeugnis_für_Talaat_Pasha.png: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1950. Added to image description. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will look at this one once I get through a review that's already on my reviewing list. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry this took so long to get to, I had some stuff come up.
- Would it be useful to add a couple sentences about the background between the Ottomans and the Armenians, maybe drawing from a very shortened summary of Armenian Genocide#Background?
- I could, but I try to keep background short and am not sure of any specific information which would enhance reader understanding of this article topic.
- "directly issued orders to generals in the Turkish war of independence from Berlin" - Would Turkish war of independence be a proper noun that should be capitalized?
- It's not consistently capped in sources so I believe MOS:CAPS applies.
- Harutian Mgrditichian is identified as Armenian in the lead, but not explicitly as such in the body.
- removed. I don't believe the sources are clear on this because it's obviously an Armenian name.
- "Ihrig and other historians have argued the prosector's strategy was deeply flawed," - Is this a typo for prosecutor, or is "prosector" a term in German law?
- Typo
- The prosecutor is always just referred to as "Gollnick", is this a surname with no introduction or a mononym?
- His first name is not disclosed in the trial transcript or any of the sources.
I've got to take a pause here, ready for Tehlirian's testimony. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In the past, commemorative ceremonies were held to honor Talat at the Monument of Liberty, but this practice had been discontinued as of 2013" - Anything more recent for an update on this?
- I couldn't find anything.
- "Turkish writer Orhan Seyfi [tr] condemned the acquittal of Tehlirian but argued Germany made up for this by transporting his body to Turkey in 1943" - "his" in this formation would be read as referring to Tehlirian's body
- Reworded
- I'm unfamiliar with the Armenian and Turkish sources used, so I do not feel comfortable assessing them for a controversial topic.
That's my first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Was I able to address all your concerns? Thanks again for reviewing, (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. I have a rather cluttered watchlist and sometimes miss changes. Hog Farm Talk 21:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Was I able to address all your concerns? Thanks again for reviewing, (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Reywas92
- Why does this use "Talat Pasha" while the biographical article is "Talaat Pasha"? Can't tell why these would be inconsistent. And several quotations have "Talât" but the name could be translated/transliterated just as the rest of the sentence was. These should probably all have the same spelling, maybe with a footnote of alternatives.
- "Talaat" spelling is historically more common, but the spellings with one "a" have become more common recently[38]. I think they are all similar enough that it's sufficiently obvious that they all refer to the same person. As for quotes, Talat, Talât, and Talaat are all valid ways of spelling the name in English and I believe changing the spelling would go against the principle of minimal change in MOS. I believe all the quotes with Talat's name are from English language sources.
- Hmm should I start an RM for Talaat Pasha? Still think closely related articles should be consistent. Reywas92Talk 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Reywas92. Per WP:CONSUB, the titles should match. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm should I start an RM for Talaat Pasha? Still think closely related articles should be consistent. Reywas92Talk 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Talaat" spelling is historically more common, but the spellings with one "a" have become more common recently[38]. I think they are all similar enough that it's sufficiently obvious that they all refer to the same person. As for quotes, Talat, Talât, and Talaat are all valid ways of spelling the name in English and I believe changing the spelling would go against the principle of minimal change in MOS. I believe all the quotes with Talat's name are from English language sources.
- From a modern American perspective it seems odd that the jury only decided on "deliberate murder" and there was no charge or way to convict on a sort of second-degree murder or manslaughter. Is there any comment on this?
- In the law in force at the time, there was a provision for non-premeditated homicide (§ 212 as opposed to § 211), but the possibility of charging Tehlirian under that provision was not mentioned during the trial. Sources don't discuss it either.
Thank you for writing this, that was a fascinating history to read. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reywas92 You're welcome, and thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 06:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
Coming up to three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next four or five days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild I don't suppose I can persuade you to review the article? It's a very interesting topic or so I've been told. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- You owe me! ;-) Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- "he served in the Armenian volunteer units". Delete "the".
- I don't think it reads better that way and most sources use "the" here.
- "Deciding to take revenge, he joined Operation Nemesis, a clandestine program carried out by the Dashnaktsutyun (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation), and was chosen for the mission to assassinate Talat after he killed Harutian Mgrditichian, who helped the Ottoman secret police, in Constantinople." An over long and complicated sentence, which has its chronological order backwards. In fact, could the whole paragraph be put in chronological order?
- I had worded it this way because some sources are vague about whether Mgrditichian's death can be counted as part of the Nemesis operation, but now rephrased.
- "The defense strategy in Tehlirian's trial, held 2–3 June 1921, was to". Optional: → 'Tehlirian's trial was held 2–3 June 1921, and the defense strategy was to ...'
- Done
- ""one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century"": quotes, opinions and attribution.
- Done
- "telling a dramatic and realistic, but untrue story". Comma after "untrue".
- Done
- "Tehlirian's acquittal brought mostly favorable reactions." Are we still talking about the international media? If so, maybe a semi colon?
- Done
- "to cause their deaths" seems a little stilted. 'with the intention of wiping them out' or something may flow better.
- Done
- "after learning about the Armenian massacres Talat ordered, CUP former finance minister Cavid Bey predicted he would be assassinated". Delete "Talat ordered"; "he" → 'Talat'.
- done
- "the war guilt question". Perhaps a very brief in line explanation of what this was.
- Done
- "The Foreign Office kept tabs on the goings-on at this apartment". Something more encyclopedic than "kept tabs"?
- Done
- "Turkish war of independence". Upper case initial letters. [39]
- Done
- "the March 1920 Kapp Putsch". An in line explanation please.
- Done
- "viewed Turkey as the innocent and wronged party". "the" → 'an'.
- Done
- "comparing the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Sèvres". Optional: reverse the order of the treaties.
- Done
- "mainly young men who either survived the genocide or lost their families". This seems to imply at least the possibility of volunteers who hadn't "survived the genocide"! And were the two mutually exclusive?
- Tehlirian can't be described as a genocide survivor as he wasn't in Anatolia at the time. Similar to Jews who were in the US during World War II aren't called Holocaust survivors. No, not mutually exclusive so removed "either".
- "where he assassinated Harutian Mgrditichian". Is it known when?
- sources are contradictory. Hoffman says "March 1919". MacCurdy says it was 1920. From context it must be somewhere in that vicinity.
- "Droshak". An in line explanation please.
- Done
- "At the Droshak headquarters in Geneva, he obtained a visa" A newspaper office seems an odd place to receive a visa.
- That's what the source says:
shortly after Tehlirian left for Europe, going first to Paris and then Geneva to the Troshag headquarters, an international ARF party center. There, with the help of party members, he obtained a visa to go to Berlin, under the guise of being a mechanical engineering student.
- That's what the source says:
- I read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ.
- "the commandos plotting assassinations". "Commandos"? At best this seems anachronistic.
- Changed to "conspirators"
- "Tehlirian continued to meet with the commandos plotting assassinations". "continued"; you haven't mentioned that they had started to.
- Reworded
- "At his trial, Tehlirian denied the assassination was premeditated". Maybe 'At his trial, Tehlirian was to deny the assassination was premeditated'?
- I tend to err on the side of simple tenses, since complicated ones sound literary. I'm not convinced that this is necessary.
- Dashnaktsutyun/Dashnak. Is there a reason why this is not standardised?
- The former is the noun, the latter is the adjective form.
- "his actions under German law of temporary insanity under section 51 of the penal code". There seems to be a definite article missing somewhere in there.
- rephrased
- "Historian Carolyn Dean writes that, "The cynical mission of the German government—to prosecute Tehlirian quickly while using the opportunity to redeem German conduct—inadvertently transformed Tehlirian into a symbol of human conscience tragically compelled to gun down a murderer for want of justice."" I think that this could usefully be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.
- Partly done
- "which revealed his knowledge of the genocide". The judge's or Tehlirian?
- The former, clarified
- The Expert witnesses section is more quotation than not. Separately, I really don't see what the block quote adds to the article.
- Ditched
- Could you go through the whole article and weed out some of the excessive quoting. Eg, at random, in Mental state, Ihrig's quotes.
- Done
- Lemberg/the judge: pick one.
- I thought it was better to vary phrasing?
- OK, in principle I like that; but in practice you introduce the judge as Lemberg at the start of the Trial section. refer to him six times as "judge", then make a single reference to him as Lemberg under Closing arguments, and revert to judge in Verdict. By the time I got to the single remention of him as Lemberg I had forgotten that was his name and had to do a Ctrl-F search, his role not being obvious from context.
- Used "judge" consistently.
- OK, in principle I like that; but in practice you introduce the judge as Lemberg at the start of the Trial section. refer to him six times as "judge", then make a single reference to him as Lemberg under Closing arguments, and revert to judge in Verdict. By the time I got to the single remention of him as Lemberg I had forgotten that was his name and had to do a Ctrl-F search, his role not being obvious from context.
- What does the block quote in Closing arguments add?
- Removed
- "A unanimous verdict, it left no possibility of appeal by the prosecution." Why not?
- Source doesn't say
- "Following his acquittal and deportation from Germany" → 'Following his acquittal Tehlirian was deported from Germany' or similar.
- done
- "where the editorial board of Hairenik honored him" How?
- Source doesn't say.
- "of many German newspapers on the same day". The same day as what? Maybe 'The assassination made the headlines of many German newspapers on the day it occurred'?
- Done
- "In 1922, the Kemalist government ... On 13 April 1924, the Kemalist government". Could the repetition be avoided?
- Done
- "At the request of the office of the prime minister of Turkey". When was this made?
- Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened.
- "Talat's remains were disinterred and transported to Turkey". Is it known when this happened?
- 25 February, a few days before the funeral. I did not think that the exact date was important enough to include.
- The article is about the "Assassination of Talat Pasha". Talat's state funeral 22 years later is IMO not "stay[ing] focused on the main topic"; its effect on Turkey and, eg, mention of memorials on longer being held there seem waay off topic.
- Really? I would think that "Death of X" articles include funeral in their scope. The transfer to Turkey would not have happened without the assassination in Germany. The JFK assassination article has disclosures of documents still ongoing several decades later.
- OK, I trimmed this section somewhat. The funeral would meet WP:NEVENT so I think it's OK to summarize it here with the expectation that a full article could be written later. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Really? I would think that "Death of X" articles include funeral in their scope. The transfer to Turkey would not have happened without the assassination in Germany. The JFK assassination article has disclosures of documents still ongoing several decades later.
- I would agree, regarding Talat's first funeral. But his body's disinterment and reburial and the political effects of this in Turkey 22 years later, and even down to today, seemed, at a minimum, to be covered in excessive detail.
- Do you really think that the popular culture section deserves to stay?
- I mean, it's covered in the sources. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so I've axed it if you think that's better.
- "Westphalian sovereignty". LOL. Seriously? I mean, I know about the three Westphalian treaties and have even visited the Osnabruck Rathaus but I doubt that one in a hundred readers will understand, even after clicking the link. How about 'then-extant concepts of national sovereignty' or something similar.
- Done. I guess it tripped me up that national sovereignty redirects to Westphalian sovereignty :)
- Ah! I did wonder.
- "contrasted both cases from the later". "from" → 'with'.
- Done
- I am not sure that the last two sentences of the article add any encyclopedia-worthy content.
- I think it's essential to include Kieser's take as he is the author of the only scholarly biography of Talat. I did move it to clarify how it's relevant.
- There are plenty of images; William Tell seems pretty loosely connected to the article to merit a (fanciful) artist's impression.
- Removed
That's it for a first rapid run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild Thanks so much for your comments. I believe I've actioned everything. It took me a few days to go through and figure out what could be cut. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- A couple of comments above. If I haven't commented it means that I am content. I will reread the current version now. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Second reading
- "in the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian army" Suggestion ' in the Armenian volunteer units of the Russian army'?
- Done
- "The fourth paragraph of Closing arguments seems unduly quote heavy.
- Cut down
Erm, and that's all. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Re the visa, I still 'read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ', but that is open to discussion so I won't let it stop me supporting this fine and important piece of work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reworded. ( t · c) buidhe 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Re the visa, I still 'read "There" as referring to Geneva, not Trosahg HQ', but that is open to discussion so I won't let it stop me supporting this fine and important piece of work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Additional thought: shouldn't Kieser (2010) and Yenen have page ranges? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added for Yenen, can't find Kieser. Thanks for your support! (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- pp. 30-44 Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done ( t · c) buidhe 11:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- pp. 30-44 Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Chipmunkdavis
I was impressed by this article when I did the DYK review, which included some source spotchecks. It would be a shame if it got archived, so I hope others will look at it. I will try to find the time for a more detailed review myself. Quick note that the Gyumri statue mention does not have a date, despite dates being given for the other locations. CMD (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can't find a date for the Gyumri bust. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I note this has three supports already, but some questions/comments:
- Lead has great coverage of the article sections. A minor point, it is odd that "Ottoman court-martial" is a pipelink to a redirect, especially as in the body it pipes to the current article title.
- Bypassed redirect
- Background has "he ordered a second wave of massacres in 1916", but no timeframe has been established for the preceding massacre.
- Mentioned World War I and 1915
- It's not fully clear from the article why exactly Germany provided asylum to the CUP leaders. What made them so valuable that even the new German government would reject extradition?
- The stated reason was that "Talaat has been loyal to us, and our country remains open to him." Added. To be honest, I don't really understand why this happened. It definitely seems to me that Germany had more to lose in terms of loss of reputation than anything it might gain from this arrangement.
- Was the CUP plan to "organize a resistance movement" linked to the Turkish War of Independence? If not, how did Talat Pasha get involved?
- Yes, this is discussed in Zürcher's book The Unionist Factor: The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement 1905-1926 . Talat wasn't that closely involved since he was forced into exile and soon sidelined by Kemal. Mentioned this connection.
- "He wrote a memoir" should be "Talat wrote a memoir", as the preceding sentence is far-right Germans.
- Done
- "After it became clear that no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice". This sentence seems quite wide and sweeping, especially as the preceding section noted Talat was wanted. Do the sources make such a claim, or is this the view of the Dashnaktsutyun?
- It is a widely held view in all the reliable sources that I read that political will to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide more or less evaporated by 1920. It's not just Armenian authors or the ARF that makes this claim. For example, the book Judgement at Istanbul states,
for a variety of reasons the legal establishment of the fact of the Armenian Genocide did not produce a measure of retributive justice that, in scope and severity, would be commensurate with the magnitude of the crime. Addressing this problem, an American author recently went so far as to declare that “[t]he Constantinople (Istanbul) war crimes trials, had they not fallen apart, would have been remembered as comparable only to Nuremberg and Tokyo.”9 Another author deplored the fact that “this first tentative step toward defining and punishing genocide failed because of Turkish nationalism and Allied indifference.”10 Going one step further, he and the noted legal scholar C.M. Bassiouni attributed the perpetration on a larger scale of many of the subsequent cases of state-organized mass murders to the relative abortiveness of the Turkish courts-martial.
- It is a widely held view in all the reliable sources that I read that political will to prosecute and hold accountable the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide more or less evaporated by 1920. It's not just Armenian authors or the ARF that makes this claim. For example, the book Judgement at Istanbul states,
- "the Turkish nationalist movement invaded Armenia". This feels odd, due to the idea of a movement invading something. Is this how sources usually word this information? If so, perhaps it would be better if "Nationalist" and "Movement" were capitalized, as they seem to be in other articles.
- Yes, the Turkish nationalist movement is named as the belligerent in the Turkish-Armenian war. "Turkish nationalist movement" is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources[40].
- "At first Tehlirian stood over the corpse, but after onlookers shouted, forgot his instructions and ran away." Is this missing a "he"?
- Added
- "Invitations from Hayriye and the Oriental Club were sent, but the turnout was higher than expected." Why is this a "but" contradiction, surely invitations lead to turnout?
- Reworded
- The first paragraph of "Trial" is a bit jarring, as the opening few sentences just after the "Trial" header do not specify they take place outside of the trial, before "At his trial" appears.
- Reworded. I do think it makes sense to keep content about the investigation in this section rather than starting a new top-level heading for it.
- Does Gollnick have a first name?
- Not stated in any of the sources or the trial transcript.
- "German police looked for Tehlirian's associates but did not uncover them." This sentence was a bit surprising as it sounds from the preceding paragraph that Shahan Natalie was part of the trial defence team.
- I believe Natalie was in the US at the time. Regardless, this insight comes from internal documents, disclosed decades later. None of the sources say that Natalie or the other Nemesis leaders took a public role in the trial.
- "but the Foreign Office rejected this solution". How was the foreign office able to reject part of the judicial process?
- Hofmann states that the Foreign Office maybe not rejected, but caused the closed trial to be rejected:
Gollnick did not prevail against the Foreign Office with his proposal to conduct the proceedings in camera. From the files, we deduce that personal contacts existed between the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office and the German Foreign Office, both before and after the trial.
- Hofmann states that the Foreign Office maybe not rejected, but caused the closed trial to be rejected:
- Can't access the relevant source page, but it seems odd that Gollnick potentially weakened his case in response to newspaper lobbying, and was rewarded by a post on that newspaper editorial board. Does Ihrig offer an explanation?
- Ihrig states that it's also possible he was simply incompetent:
WP:OR but the evidence that the DAZ Gollnick is the same Gollnick (based on checking the cited primary sources, none of them gives a first name) seems to be weak. They could also be different individuals, IMO.One might even go as far as to speculate that prosecutor Gollnick’s messy, uninspired, and apparently lackadaisical per for mance was perhaps, in turn, motivated by his disgust at Humann’s lobbying. Perhaps he indeed did not want Tehlirian to be convicted and secretly sided with the Armenian cause. Th at would have made his performance actually rather clever; if he did want Tehlirian to be convicted, on the other hand, it would just have been an abysmal performance, nothing more. Perhaps that is all that it was, because it appears that Gollnick was indeed rewarded by Humann, whom he served in the coming months as a member of his editorial board at the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.
- Ihrig states that it's also possible he was simply incompetent:
- "some leaders were arrested". Were these leaders part of the conscripted men from the previous sentence?
- No, clarified
- "the general deportation order was given and armed gendarmes forced the Armenians". I think this might be slightly more accessible to those without background knowledge if it was "a general deportation order" and "forced Armenians" (or "forced Armenians in the city" or similar).
- Done
- I don't fully understand the meaning of the quote "there had been changes in his resolve".
- Ihrig states: "Again the judge intervened openly in favor of the defendant: when defense attorney Gordon asked him whether he had decided to kill Talât Pasha or whether the doubts about being able to kill a person had made him drop the idea, Judge Lemberg pointed out that “there had been changes in his resolve."" Not sure how I could clarify without going into WP:OR.
- How did Terzibashian's story, which seems to focus on Enver Pasha, have strong bearing on this case regarding Talat Pasha?
- Her testimony was an important part of the trial and is extensively discussed by both Dean and Ihrig.
- "Talat's telegrams, not entered as evidence in the trial, were nevertheless". This "not entered as evidence in the trial" feels redundant; it is clear they are the ones discussed in the preceding paragraph.
- Removed
- Could the State funeral in Turkey section provide a timeframe for the remain request? It feels like it was quite a time jump from the trial and press coverage.
- Neither Olson, Kieser, or any other source I can find gives an exact date, although Olson implies that the request was made shortly before it happened. (WP:OR: The earliest it could possibly have been was mid-1942 when Saraçoğlu went into office).
- "Istanbul Military Museum in Istanbul". Don't think the "in Istanbul" is needed here.
- Duh! Removed.
- "It is commonly but incorrectly believed that Tehlirian survived the genocide by hiding under his mother's corpse." In the testimony Tehlirian stated it was his brother's corpse, is there a reason suggested that the myth switched to his mother?
- Not stated in the source.
- "Future Nuremberg trial prosecutor Robert Kempner, who attended the trial". "attended the trial" could be clarified given the last trial mentioned as Nuremberg, perhaps "the Tehlirian trial".
- Done
Best, CMD (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Most dealt with/answered, so just replying below:
- The sentences "Natalie saw it as an opportunity to propagandize the Armenian cause.[92] He believed that Tehlirian would likely be convicted according to German law but hoped to secure a pardon." need some clarification based on above. The preceding sentence starts with "The defense strategy...", and the subsequent sentence starts with "Werthauer [the defence lawyer already mentioned above] was more optimistic". Later another sentence says "Their strategy was successful," so the positioning and wording implies to me that Natalie was there as part of the team and involved in crafting the defence strategy.
- According to the sources, he was involved in crafting the defence strategy. MacCurdy states that he visited Berlin at least once, in March 1921, but it's not clear where he was during the trial. I don't think the article implies his physical presence. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- On "there had been changes in his resolve", I get a much better understanding from your explanation above including the "in favor of the defendant" than I get from the article. Could you put a [Tehlirian] after "his" in the quote? I initially read "his" as referring to the prosecutor. May be worth added that explicit explanation of the judge's intervention as well, but will leave that to your assessment.
- Both done (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I remain unsure about the statement "no one else would bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice" in wikivoice, perhaps because of hesitation around the "Bring to justice" phrasing. However, if this is the only remaining issue, and no other reviewers see an issue, I will support. CMD (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I can see how that might read as loaded language, but something like initiate criminal proceedings wouldn't work because the problem was as much enforcing judgements as about trying the perpetrators. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- While welcoming further input into the above from other editors either way as part of normal article development, I support based on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4. As I mentioned earlier I had done some spotchecks on the article while looking at it for DYK, so while a limited check, I would also support 1c and 1f based on those. CMD (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I can see how that might read as loaded language, but something like initiate criminal proceedings wouldn't work because the problem was as much enforcing judgements as about trying the perpetrators. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Tkbrett
I'll try to get to this in the next day or two. Tkbrett (✉) 00:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "About one million Armenians were murdered." -> fix passive voicing; who murdered them?
- This is the total deaths of Armenians during the genocide, rephrased.
- link propaganda
- pipe Fake passport
- "an attempted coup d'état." -> "an attempted coup d'état of the German government"
- Done
- link Coup d'état
- pipe Russian Army to Imperial Russian Army (I think?)
- "Tehlirian attended these meetings even after Despite falling ill with typhoid in mid-December."
- Fixed
- "At the end of February, the conspirators located Talat." Is there any further information on how they located him?
- Expanded on this (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "went to Talat's apartment at Hardenbergstrasse 4, where Ernst Jäckh, a Foreign Office official and pro-Turkish activist, who often met with Talat arrived at 11:30 a.m.": move the comma after 'activist' to being after 'Talat'.
- Done
- pipe Red Cross to International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
- link Anatolia
- link Ankara
- link imam
- Kaiser should be capitalized, no?
- And linked to the kaiser it is referring to, not the title. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done ( t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- And linked to the kaiser it is referring to, not the title. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- pipe Islamic nations to Islam or somewhere else appropriate
- "he refused to speak Turkish" -> pipe Turkish to Turkish language
- "an Armenian interpreter" -> pipe Armenian to Armenian language
- link editorial board
- pipe gendarmes to Gendarmerie
As you can tell by the above, I don't have much to critique here. This page blew my socks off. Now that I have Ihrig's book on the way to my local bookstore, Harvard University Press really ought to being paying you a finder's fee. ;) Tkbrett (✉) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Tkbrett, Thanks so much for your review and I'm glad that you liked the article. I have added all the links suggested. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe: Had a read over all the revisions and they look good to me. Happy to offer my Support. Tkbrett (✉) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
- Date formatting on #201 doesn't match the others, cite formatting otherwise looks good
- Several publishers are redlinked; I suspect that this is an artifact of their links to German Wikipedia articles. I generally don't see a need for links to publishers, but that's just me.
- Date formatting in the Journal articles section is inconsistent
- Some books are part of series. I suggest adding them and the volume # (if any) to the bibliographic information
- Spotchecks of ISBNs and doi's all OK
- Sources are highly reliable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected 1 and 3. I don't feel strongly about linking publishers, but some other editors do believe it should be done. I don't think adding series would be beneficial. None of the series is especially topically focused and it I've never seen it included when the books are cited in RS sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected 1 and 3. I don't feel strongly about linking publishers, but some other editors do believe it should be done. I don't think adding series would be beneficial. None of the series is especially topically focused and it I've never seen it included when the books are cited in RS sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Shuttle-Centaur
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a proposed upper stage for the Space Shuttle using the Centaur upper stage rocket. The whole Space Shuttle program was mired in controversy from the start, and this project spent a billion dollars with meagre results. The article addresses several questions and provides object lessons. It has been said that Shuttle-Centaur was a casualty of NASA's increased safety consciousness after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but as the article shows, this was not entirely true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Text review by Neopeius
I promised to review this article, and I shall, but things are still very busy. I have a few issues I'll want to talk about when I've done the whole thing. Sorry for the delay. Putting this here as a placeholder so mods don't close the FAC for lack of interest -- this is a worthy article. --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's my review, at long last, but I'm glad I waited as you had a chance to address other issues. There's not too much to be done as we worked together on A-Class. Here's what I've got:
- I bounce off the second paragraph of the lede every time. It's practically a restating of a few paragraphs from the main text and not the most vital ones. I would just delete it. In any event, "Both versions were cradled" would be better phrased as "Both versions were designed to be cradled.." since none were ever actually flown.
- True, but they actually were mated with the CISS. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I won't block FAC for it, but consider making the second paragraph cover more ground than just the truss. I still bounce off of it. :)
- Expanded the intro. Let me know if there are more points you think should be mentioned in the lead. Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that works, thanks. You may have addressed the points below, but I don't see a reply. Can you go through them and determine their status (including the corrections where I don't say change this for that but instead just post the sentence to be changed with strikeout incorporated in it? Thanks! -- Neopeius ( talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Should all be done now. Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that works, thanks. You may have addressed the points below, but I don't see a reply. Can you go through them and determine their status (including the corrections where I don't say change this for that but instead just post the sentence to be changed with strikeout incorporated in it? Thanks! -- Neopeius ( talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Expanded the intro. Let me know if there are more points you think should be mentioned in the lead. Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I won't block FAC for it, but consider making the second paragraph cover more ground than just the truss. I still bounce off of it. :)
- True, but they actually were mated with the CISS. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Background
Centaur
- Change "Centaur was developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer." to "Centaur was an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s." -- most defining facts should come first.
- The proposed form makes it sound as if the oxidizer was developed by General Dynamics. Hawkeye7(discuss)
- How about commas before "using" and after "oxidizer"? I think it's important that people know it's a rocket first and who is was made by second.
- Re-worded to effect this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- How about commas before "using" and after "oxidizer"? I think it's important that people know it's a rocket first and who is was made by second.
- The proposed form makes it sound as if the oxidizer was developed by General Dynamics. Hawkeye7(discuss)
*Change "The technical problems were overcome. The development" to "The technical problems were overcome, and the development" (it makes the sentence a little longer, but otherwise, the first sentence just sits there.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Space Shuttle upper stages
- Change "using a series of gravitational slingshot maneuvers around planets" to "using a series of gravitational slingshot maneuvers around other planets"
- No, because the slingshot manuevers were sometimes around Earth. See Galileo project for details. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Planets other than the destination.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Planets other than the destination.
- No, because the slingshot manuevers were sometimes around Earth. See Galileo project for details. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
*"However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages, a large one" Replace last comma with a colon.
Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Change "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a planetary mission," to "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a direct outer planetary mission," (a trip to Mars or Venus wouldn't need it)
- Sources don't say that. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course they do. How else would Galileo slingshot? :)
- The source says:
Specifically, the Air Force asked NASA to develop an additional stage that could be used for planetary missions such as a proposed probe to Jupiter called Galileo. NASA made Boeing the prime contractor for developing the IUS.
went with that. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source says:
- Of course they do. How else would Galileo slingshot? :)
- Sources don't say that. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deep space probes *"which was interested in the development of autonomous spacecraft that could take evasive action in the face of anti-satellite weapons, and the manner in which the JPL was designing Galileo to withstand the intense radiation of the magnetosphere of Jupiter, which had had application in surviving nearby nuclear detonations." I'm not sure how this relates to Galileo
As an autonomous spacecraft. Added "like Galileo" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perfect.
*Change "there was another mission on the cards:" to "...in the cards" (since you're using American English throughout)
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"The USAF adopted Shuttle-Centaur in 1984 for the launch of its Milstar satellites." Remove italics since it's a satellite series, not an individual satellite.Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur
*"NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft," replace comma with colon
- Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
change "The second was that while it was more powerful, Centaur generated its thrust" to "The second advantage over the IUS was that while Centaur was more powerful, it generated its thrust"Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Congressional approval
*Change "In addition to the funding, it directed NASA and Boeing to cease work on the two stage IUS for Galileo" to "In addition to allocating funding, the Ac directed NASA and Boeing..."'
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The Centaur G and G Prime avionics were the same as that of the standard Centaur and were still mounted in the forward equipment module. TheyItused a 24-bit Teledyne Digital Computer Unit with 16 kilobytes of RAM to control guidance and navigation. TheyItstill used the same pressurized steel tank, but with some additional insulation including a two-layer foam blanket over the forward bulkhead and a three-layer radiation shield.[50] Other changes included new forward and aft adapters; a new propellant fill, drain and dump system; and an S band transmitter and RF system compatible with the tracking and data relay satellite system.[53] Considerable effort was put into makingtheCentaur safe, with redundant components to overcome malfunctions and a propellant draining, dumping and venting system so that the propellants could be dumped in case of emergency."- Changes suggested because you are talking about two boosters.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Management
*"At first, the engineers at the Lewis Research Center preferred to have it declared a payload" "At first" not followed by an expected "but later"...
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Preparations
*"both crews were entirely composed of astronauts who had already flown in space at least once before, and were known to not suffer from it." Delete comma.
- Deleted comma. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
change "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency, one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program." to "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency (in fact, one that never occurred in the life of the Space Shuttle program)."Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Cancellation *I think the paragraph immediately preceding, about the Challenger disaster, would be better as the first paragraph of this section.
Moved into this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Change "The Centaur team, many of whom witnessed the disaster, were devastated. On 20 February, Moore ordered the Galileo and Ulyssess missions postponed. Too many key personnel were involved in the analysis of the accident for the missions to proceed. They were
It wasnot canceled,"- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Legacy
*change "When the JPL tried to use its high gain antenna" to "When the JPL tried to use Galileo's high gain antenna"
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, italicize GalileoItalicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
*"The Ulysses project scientists had to wait even longer; the Ulysses spacecraft was launched using the IUS and Payload Assist Module on STS-41 on 6 October 1990.[33]" Currently this goes right into the Titan IV sentence. I'd put a carriage return after. It's all right if it stands alone.
- MOS:PARAGRAPH: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text.Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Minimized, but not eliminated. As stands, it's something of a non sequitur.
- MOS:PARAGRAPH: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text.Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
In any case, the paragraph has been split as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
---
That's what I got! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Nick-D
Support Comments by Nick-D As disclosure, I'm reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye on my talk page. I don't think I've ever given them an easy ride on nominations though, and won't be doing so this time either ;)
- This article took six months to get through A-class, so I asked out of fear that it would get archived for want of reviewers like my last FAC submission. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the lead should be be re-written to be less technical. E.g. was this a self-contained rocket system, or something which required a space shuttle? (and if so, how?) I'm a space nerd, and I don't really understand this sentence, and as a result the subject of the article isn't really clear on the basis of the lead. I didn't really understand the concept here until I saw the image in the 'design' section (which might be a better choice for the infobox as a result).
- Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Surely you're not surprised? The cross over of military nerds and space nerds is about 100%. I'm particularly interested in the Cold War-era space programs. The change to the lead looks good. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Centaur was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s..." - say who developed it, at least broadly (e.g. was this developed by/for NASA and/or the USAF?)
- It says it in the next paragraph. Moved to this one. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The first two sentences in the para starting with "Centaur upper stages were used..." are a bit complex and lengthy
- Cut it back. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ditto the sentence starting with "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch" (perhaps split into two sentences)
- Split. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "who contended that contamination observed during early Space Shuttle..." - it's not clear what this means
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS" - were these modifications significant, and were they removed when the program was cancelled?
- Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. It seems that each Space Shuttle had a lot of unique quirks by the end of the program. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore" - do we know when?
- Added "in November 1985". Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program" - bit unclear (is the second half of this sentence needed?)
- Yes. The point is that it was a dangerous contingency, but an unlikely one. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- "in which he made the case for Moore the Space Shuttle " - should this be "in which he made the case to Moore"? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt.
- The lead paragraph is rather long. I might try to split it.
- Already split. Just a running issue with the browser. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Someone reading the first paragraph by itself might not be clear on whether the Shuttle-Centaur actually happened, since you open by saying it was "proposed" but say two versions were produced.
- Deleted "proposed". Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "during a demonstration to United States Air Force (USAF) and NASA officials.[6]" I would say "for" rather than "to" as more common in AmEng.
- Take your word for it. Done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Budget cutbacks in the early 1970s led to the termination of Saturn V production" When did the Saturn V production in fact end? Just makings sure dates are correct.
- The decision to cancel was taken in 1969; the last one was delivered in 1972. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added that the decision was taken in 1969. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "When the USAF questioned NASA's determination that all US space launches, civil and military, should use the Space Shuttle, NASA Administrator James M. Beggs insisted that expendable launch vehicles were obsolete, and that any money spent on them would only undermine the Space Shuttle's cost-effectiveness." This might be dated better since Beggs was Administrator under Reagan and you've just been discussing events in the early 1970s.
- Moved down to the a better place chronologically. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- More soon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so slow. Here's the rest.
- " Whereas the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, Congressman Ronnie G. Flippo, whose district in Alabama encompassed the Marshall Space Flight Center, supported the OMB decision." Seems an odd sentence, with the whereas.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- " its experience with Centaur was the greatest of all the NASA centers" I might say "any of" rather than "all"
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The cover sported the logo, with the project motto, co-opted from the movie Rocky: "Go for it!"[68]" Are we sure it's Rocky rather than Rocky III?
- The source says: "For the front cover, he combined Ross's symbol with the trite but effective catchphrase from the popular movie Rocky: 'Go for it!'". However, the line appears in Rocky III, which came out in 1982. So, I'm changing it to "Rocky III" (The quote became the catchphrase and theme tune of Rocky V, but that did not come out in 1992.) How do you know these things?Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- LOL. Have seen Rocky a few times over the years and was fairly sure the line was not from there. So I googled.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source says: "For the front cover, he combined Ross's symbol with the trite but effective catchphrase from the popular movie Rocky: 'Go for it!'". However, the line appears in Rocky III, which came out in 1982. So, I'm changing it to "Rocky III" (The quote became the catchphrase and theme tune of Rocky V, but that did not come out in 1992.) How do you know these things?Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Centaur was declared to be a payload in 1983, but the backs soon became evident" backs?
- Drawbacks. Accidentally deleted four characters. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The main safety issue involved what would happen in the case of an aborted mission, a failure of the Space Shuttle systems to put them into orbit. In that case, they would have to dump the Centaur's propellant and land. " Who is they/them?
- The crew. Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Centaur team, many of whom witnessed the disaster, were devastated. " I think "were" should be "was" in AmEng.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is it "stop work orders" or "stop-work orders"? And can the mentions be consolidated?
- @Wehwalt: Mentions of what? Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of the stop work order. You mention them twice in consecutive paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh. Merged. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of the stop work order. You mention them twice in consecutive paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: Mentions of what? Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Continuity would be improved if you mentioned Lewis's change of name to Glenn.
- Good idea. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lead paragraph is rather long. I might try to split it.
CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy
Like Nick-D, Hawkeye7 requested this review on my talk page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "liquid oxygen as an oxidiser" The rest of the article uses MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, so I'm assuming this should be "oxidizer".
- Oooh. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "This was an attractive prospect in the early days of the Space Race" The advantages of using liquid hydrogen are clear with the higher energy/mass ratio over kerosene, and this makes it seem like the advantages of liquid hydrogen were only relevant in the early days of space travel, rather than beginning then and continuing through present day.
- Deleted "in the early days of the Space Race" Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "rocket engineers had to first overcome enormous technological challenges" Many of the engineering problems for these rockets were presumably difficult and it's not clear how the hydrogen tank issue was notably difficult relative to the other technical challenges. This could be shortened as added to the previous sentence, something like "A rocket utilizing liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel can theoretically lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than one with a conventional rocket fuel like kerosene, but this capability required new technology to be developed."
- It really was rocket science. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel, meaning that it assumes liquid form only at extremely low temperatures and therefore must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from evaporating or boiling." This states multiple times that liquid hydrogen must be very cold to remain a liquid. Since the boiling point is the temperature given, evaporation doesn't need to be mentioned, as that would happen in a colder environment. My take is "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel that must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling."
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family: a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized, with the hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; there was no internal bracing and no insulation surrounding the propellants." The intro here makes it sound like there were multiple weight saving measures from the Atlas rockets, but then just lists one major feature, which was the unpressurized and unbraced fuel and oxygen tanks.
- It lists three: (1) a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized; (2) hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; and (3) no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't #1 and #3 the same thing? Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Centaur-G added insulation while retaining the pressurised steel shell. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't #1 and #3 the same thing? Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- It lists three: (1) a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized; (2) hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; and (3) no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "It must therefore be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, particularly the rocket exhaust, atmospheric friction during flight through the atmosphere at high speeds and the radiant heat of the Sun." I would add that the hydrogen needs to be insulated from the relatively warming liquid oxygen. To keep the sentence from getting too long, I would remove the atmospheric friction phrase and instead link aerodynamic heating. Additionally, remove "particular" as that implies there are other significant but unmentioned sources of heat.
- Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The tiny molecules of hydrogen can leak through microscopic holes". Per Dawson and Boles, it seems like the concern for a lack of insulation is the buildup of pressure as liquid hydrogen turned to a gas that necessitated venting (and thus the loss of hydrogen fuel). They make it sound like lost of hydrogen through microscopic holes was a design defect but not the primary issue with keeping hydrogen in liquid form, so I would mentioned the venting here regarding hydrogen loss once it boils.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Paved the way" is figure of speech; maybe use "allowed" instead?
- Changed to "led to" Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- "its use in the upper stages of the Saturn V Moon rocket and later by the Space Shuttle." This should link the upper stages that used liquid hydrogen. Additionally, the RS-25 engine's should be linked as well. "Moon" can be taken out, as that wasn't part of the name of the Saturn V.
- Linked. Removed Moon. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This lists the Viking, Helios, and Viking missions as among the Titan III-Centaur missions, but as far as I can tell, they were the only successful launches for Titan-Centaur. Saying "including" makes it sound like there were other launches/missions that Titan-Centaur successfully supported.
- There was one unsuccessful mission as well, Sphinx (satellite). Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I saw that when I was looking up the Titan III-Centaur launch history; my point is that the paragraph comes across like those missions are some of the successful missions, when in fact they represent all of the successful missions. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's been re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I saw that when I was looking up the Titan III-Centaur launch history; my point is that the paragraph comes across like those missions are some of the successful missions, when in fact they represent all of the successful missions. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- There was one unsuccessful mission as well, Sphinx (satellite). Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Titan IIIE was viewed at the time to be the last expendable launch system; John Noble Wilford from The New York Times wrote that it was "expected to be the last new launching vehicle to be developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration until the advent of the reusable Space Shuttle which should be ready in 1978."" I know it's mentioned later in the article that this was viewed as the last uncrewed vehicle by James Beggs/NASA leadership; is there a quote/reference from them that could be used here? I know Wilford is a respected journalist, but since he was not a decision maker at NASA, I think it would make more sense to be referencing someone who was.
- Deleted this, as we have Begg's opinion later on. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "It was hoped that the Galileo spacecraft would be able to make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route." Was there any research group hoping for this, or just JPL scientists? I would state who was hoping for the asteroid flyby.
- JPL. The idea arose naturally as they plotted a course to ensure that the spacecraft would not crash into an asteroid. I don't want to get in too deep here, so I have written: "In December 1984, Galileo project manager John R. Casani proposed that Galileo make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route.It would be the first time a US space mission visited an asteroid. NASA Administrator James M. Beggs endorsed the proposal as a secondary objective for Galileo." Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- " One such change was to allow the Milstar to have a direct connection with Centaur that would be separated using explosive bolts. This required additional testing." Is there any additional information about this testing, such as time or cost increases? If not, I would combine the sentences, since it's a short and abrupt sentence at the end of the section.
- All classified I'm afraid. Combined sentences. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Lewis Research Center pointed out that Centaur provided four advantages over the IUS." How did the Lewis Center point this out? Was it a press release, Congressional testimony, discussion at a NASA meeting, etc.? I would state how it was communicated (such as "The Lewis Center released a statement of the four advantages that Centaur had over the IUS"), since it's not like the Lewis Center can be pointing out advantages like a person can in a conversation.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "they had 25 times the Centaur's fuel" I'm not positive this is grammatically incorrect, but shouldn't this be "they had 25 times the amount of Centaur's fuel" instead?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Thus, a total of $959 million (equivalent to $1935 million in 2019) had been spent with nothing to show for it." I would remove most of this, and tack on the overall cost to the previous sentence. While there wasn't a Shuttle-Centaur launch, the system was still developed and flight hardware was created, which I'm assuming also affected Centaur G development, not to mention all of the jobs and experience gained from the development, so I think "nothing to show for it" may be a little too harsh/not entirely accurate. Maybe something like, "Shutting down the project cost another $75 million (equivalent to $151 million in 2019), bringing the total program cost to $959 million."
- Deleted "with nothing to show for it". Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "To this had to be added the cost of launching satellites and space probes by other means." I would remove this, since it falls outside of the scope of the Shuttle-Centaur programs, and will always be the case for retired/abandoned projects that leave a need to be filled.
- Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- " most likely from vibration during overland transportation between the JPL and Kennedy Space Center three times or during the rough launch by the IUS" I would make this start with "likely from" or "potentially from" as I would only provide one option in the case of using "most likely" and this lists two.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is the Glenn Research Center display using Shuttle-specific hardware, or just the Centaur G Prime in general? If so, I would state that, since the mention of the Titan IV mission manager makes it seem like it wasn't about Shuttle-Centaur.
- This is uncertain. "One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997. The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article." [41]Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Notes
- #12: Should this be "NASA History Division" rather than "history.nasa.gov"? And is the date March 30, 2009?
- Changed to "NASA" Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #23: Link The Washington Post?
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #39: Link The Washington Post?
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #44: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #58: Looks like there's an author, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #65: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #77: Link Los Angeles Times?
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #79: Looks like there's a "curator" (editor?), and date, listed at the bottom of the page.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #88: Link Orlando Sentinel?
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #91: Link Los Angeles Times? Link Associated Press?
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #92: Link The New York Times? Looks like there's an author, too.
- Don't normally link newspapers, but done. Author omitted by an error. Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #99: Page range should take an en dash.
- Changed dash to endash. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- #104: Looks like there's an editor, and date, listed at the bottom of the page.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- Bowles 2002: Link The University Press of Kentucky?
- Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dawson 1991: The link gives me the following error message: {"statusCode":404,"message":"Not Found"}
- NASA seems to have recently removed the NASA history publications from the document server. Substituted [42]. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dawson 2002: Link The University Press of Kentucky?
- Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Heppenheimer 2002: Does T. A. Heppenheimer normally go by his initials?
- Apparently he did. His name is in that form on all his publications. (I have a hard copy of the book.) Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hitt & Smith 2014: Link University of Nebraska Press?
- Don't link publishers. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Johnson 2018: Does Johnson normally go by an initial? And link The Journal of Space Safety Engineering?
- Added. Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Martin 1987: Does Martin normally go by an initial? And link Acta Astronautica?
- It is the form that it appears on his journal articles. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Waldrop September 1982: Link Science?
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Waldrop October 1982: Link Science?
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Welzel et al. 1992: Link Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement? And surely they don't all go by their initials?
- Linked. It's the form that they appear in the journal articles. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- All issues addressed. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Usernameunique, are Hawkeye's responses satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild & Hawkeye7, it generally looks good. Hawkeye, is there a reason you didn't add the date for 44, 58, 65, 79, and 104? And unless it's someone like Heppenheimer, where it's clear they go by initials, I'd recommend using full names; it can become a real pain trying to figure out who initialed authors are, so you may as well spare an interested reader that trouble. But initials are ultimately a point of preference, and assuming there is an intentional reason for not adding the dates, then I'm signed off on the source review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't normally add dates for web pages, as not all of them have them. I've added them here (although one is a guess). In the case of academic papers, the authors are normally referred to in the form of their initials and surnames, that's all there is in the papers except an identification of the institution they work for, and often I don't have any way of finding out what the initials stand for. In the case of (for example) R. E. Martin, all I know is that they worked at General Dynamics in the early 1980s. The interested reader can find the paper simply by clicking on the link. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild & Hawkeye7, it generally looks good. Hawkeye, is there a reason you didn't add the date for 44, 58, 65, 79, and 104? And unless it's someone like Heppenheimer, where it's clear they go by initials, I'd recommend using full names; it can become a real pain trying to figure out who initialed authors are, so you may as well spare an interested reader that trouble. But initials are ultimately a point of preference, and assuming there is an intentional reason for not adding the dates, then I'm signed off on the source review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from TRM
Lead
- "Milstar satellites" our article doesn't italicise Milstar.
- Missed that one. De-italicised. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like it's back to being reitalicized. osunpokeh ( talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Removed again. Hawkeye7(discuss) 08:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like it's back to being reitalicized. osunpokeh ( talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Missed that one. De-italicised. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "half the cost of Centaur G." do you mean half the development cost?
- Design and development. Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis" -> "The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis"
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "two launches would only have a one-hour launch window and there would be just six days between them, so separate launch " triple "launch" can we separate and/or revise.
- Tightened prose. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "in Kearny Mesa, San Diego on" comma after San Diego.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Space Shuttle Challenger accident" i don't think you need to remind us it was a Space Shuttle having already said it in the lead.
- Deleted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link gravity assist.
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "G-Prime" or "G Prime"?
- The former. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "66.80 kN" article says 66,700 N.
- Good catch. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Background
- You link liquid H2 but not liquid O2, why?
- Hydrogen is more interesting. Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "challenges of utilizing" repetitive, perhaps just "using" here.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "loss of excessive amounts of fuel.[4] Fuel could also be lost " jarringly repetitive.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""for United States Air Force and" put (USAF) here and not later.
- Done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "and NASA officials"" link NASA as I don't think you link it at all.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Huntsville, Alabama to" comma after Alabama.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "were eventually overcome" is there a reason for this? Better management/engineering/design teams?
- Added a bit. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "1960s and 70s" 1970s
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "55 times with only two" comparable figures - all numerals or all words, perhaps "55 times, only failing twice".
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "needed to be in higher orbits" to avoid orbit three times in a sentence, can we just say "needed to be higher"? Or similar?
- Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The space tug became" say what?
- I don't understand. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "As a hedge against" link hedge.
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "that the United States Air Force (USAF) would"" just USAF
- Done. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "space tug" or "Space Tug"?
- Lowercased. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could link Galilean moons.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "for budget cuts" to avoid repeating budget, maybe "for cost savings"?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "What saved Galileo from cancellation was" I find this construction clumsy, perhaps "The intervention of the USAF, which ..., saved Galileo from cancellation"?
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link Anti-satellite weapon.
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could link launch window in the lead since you link it in the main text.
- Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- " Galileo project manager" shouldn't Galileo be in italics here?
- Italicised. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "route.It would" space.
- Spaced. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "power level.[18] Running at this power level "' repetitive.
- Trimmed. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1979, NASA's" following the chronology, we're already in late 1979.
- Deleted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""would cost money " seems overtly obvious. Perhaps "the cost of modification was worth it" or something.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "avoid as much as posiible"" typo.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "mission in the cards" we say "on the cards"" but either feels colloquial.
- We say "on the cards" in Australia too; the Americans had me change it (see above). Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the ecliptic plane" what's that?
- The plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "secure phone lines" remove phone.
- Deleted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to "Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Decision to use...
- "Congressman Edward P. Boland. Boiland considered" He considered.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "a gravity assist from" this was already linked as "gravitational slingshot".
- Unlinked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "more than it had budgeted for" just "more than budgeted" is probably ok.
- Deleted "for" Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "time.[19][18] Longer" order.
- Re-ordered. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- ""hydrogen.[19][18] NASA" order.
- Re-ordered. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- " 2019).[41][40]"" ditto.
- Re-ordered. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "the two stage IUS" two-stage.
- Hyphenated. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "classified Defense satellites" why the capital D?
- Because the department is meant. Changed to "department of Defense". Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "It was 6.1 meters (20 ft) long, allowing for large USAF payloads up to 12.2 meters" how does that work, were they folded in half?
- You have to fit both the upper stage and the payload into the 60-foot cargo bay, so if you have a 20-foot upper stage, you can only have a 40-foot satellite. This is why Centaur-G is shorter and fatter than the regular Centaur. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- That needs proper explanation in the article. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh. Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- That needs proper explanation in the article. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have to fit both the upper stage and the payload into the 60-foot cargo bay, so if you have a 20-foot upper stage, you can only have a 40-foot satellite. This is why Centaur-G is shorter and fatter than the regular Centaur. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "forward and aft adapters" what were these for?
- Docking. Linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "the tracking and data relay satellite system." overlinked.
- Wow. That didn't show up in the duplicate link detector. Changed to "TRDS" and unliked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were" same as before: "The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis..."
- Changed as in the lead. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Shuttle-Centaur project logo." fragment, no full stop.
- Removed full stop. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Logo and project organization chart probably ought to go in same order as they are described in the article.
- Swapped. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- "trade off" is usually hyphenated (or unspaced).
- Hyphenated and linked. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a really good read. I'm up to "Preparations". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Preparations
- "and James Van Hoften and" our article has him at van not Van.
- Decapitated. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "170 kilometers" adj=on.
- Adjectived Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "to allow for astronauts ... and allow for a ..." repetitive.
- Reworded. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "would be just six days between" earlier it said 15 and 20 May?
- Well spotted. Corrected to "five days". Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "in Kearny Mesa, San Diego on 13 " comma after Diego.
- Added. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- "arrives" caption doesn't have a period, "addresses" caption does have a period. I think they're both fragments so neither needs one.
- Removed full stop. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- ""The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was" no need to bring back "Space Shuttle" into the description, we've got it by now.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- ""NASA and the Air Force had " ->"NASA and the USAF had "
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 92 needs a pp.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd expect to see ISBNs consistently formatted.
- As far as I know they are. I had the MilHistBot check the formatting. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Individually I'm sure they're fine and functional but I think you have five different ISBNs and each of them is differently formatted. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Only two formats are used - ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, because I normally copy the ISBN from the indicia of the book. The ISBN-13 consists of five parts, which are separated with a hyphen:
- The first part is always "978"
- The group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers, which is normally 0 or 1 in the English-speaking world;
- The publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group, which is of variable length;
- The title identifier, which is again of variable length; and
- The check digit at the end which validates the ISBN.
- So for example, we have 0-8032 is University of Nebraska Press, 0-8131 is University Press of Kentucky and 1-937219 is the National Reconnaissance Office. You can look them up here
- I've reformatted the ISBN-10s as an ISBN-13s. This involves putting 978 on the front and recalculating the check digit, since ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 use different algorithms. (Calculations don't count as original research per WP:CALC.) Normally a Bot comes along and does this. So now there is only one format. Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Only two formats are used - ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, because I normally copy the ISBN from the indicia of the book. The ISBN-13 consists of five parts, which are separated with a hyphen:
- Individually I'm sure they're fine and functional but I think you have five different ISBNs and each of them is differently formatted. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I know they are. I had the MilHistBot check the formatting. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- An excellent piece of work, gets my support. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Deutschland-class battleship
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This article covers the last class of German pre-dreadnought battleships, which were built in the early 1900s. Interestingly, most of them were completed after the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought rendered their design obsolescent, but three of them outlasted Dreadnought by more than a couple of decades. I initially wrote this article a little over a decade ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at that time. I've since thoroughly rewritten it with new sources, and it went through a peer review last month that helped to iron things out. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Have added alt text
- File:Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_"Schlesien"_podczas_ostrzału_Helu_(2-64).jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if @Piotrus: might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can't help with Zell, very generic, but the next line mentions German WWII newspaper published in Poland ([43]). This means that Template:PD-Poland may be applicable - granted, Poland was occupied at that time, but Poland obviously did not accept the fact (that's an interesting issue when it comes to copyright). Further, based on some discussions in Commons I remember, since the file was officially uploaded here under PD by the Polish National Archive, similar discussions when it comes to Bundesarchive generally ended with saying that "even if some facts are not clear/dubious, Bundesarchive has made the legal declaration this is PD so that's their responsibility, not our problem". So I think the picture is fine, as we have both the Polish-PD plus the backing of the official Polish institution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if @Piotrus: might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM
I have returned... Will get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- one thing in the lead, decap Invasion in the final para
- Done
- suggest "marking a significant increase in firepower"
- Works for me
- you could put "oa" in the infobox to specify which length is being shown
- Done
- "Deutschland had had a larger forward conning tower"?
- Fixed
- "equipped with three-shaft triple-expansion steam engines that each drove a screw propeller" is confusing. Would "each equipped with a three-shaft triple-expansion steam engine; each shaft drove a single screw propeller." work?
- I think just removing the "-shaft" bit might solve the problem?
- there is some repetition regarding the boilers
- Replaced one of them
- instead of the minimum, you could put the speed range in the infobox
- Works for me
- "carried a
n147.5 kg"- Good catch
- you could add the barbette armor to the infobox
- Done
- "four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with
four8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns"- Fixed
- "like her sisters'"
- Good catch
- "for four 8.8 anti-aircraft guns" rm excess space
- Fixed
More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the new armored ship Deutschland" armored ship? Wasn't she a heavy cruiser?
- Yes, though the Germans initially classified them as "panzerschiffe" - but I suppose we should use the classification that we use in their article for consistency
- fn 23 should be pp.
- Fixed
- author-link Friedman
- Done
- Koop & Schmolke doesn't have any unique detail?
- I assume that it does, but it's not readily available so I haven't been able to consult it.
That's all I could find, nitpicks really. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks PM, and welcome back! Parsecboy ( talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- All good, and thanks. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
Well over three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next couple of days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, this could do with a prose review by a non-milhist editor to wrap it up. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do we know why the machine cannons were removed?
- Unusually, I can add a reason! Not usually the case in things like this.
It's rare for me to review and not have significant comments, but I'm supporting on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dumelow
Looking good to me. Only a few minor comments, some may be my personal preference and can be ignored, as you please - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "After the battle, the four surviving ships were removed from front-line service and used for coastal defense through mid-1917. Hannover alone remained on patrol duty, while the rest were used as barracks or training ships." Is there an "afterwards" missing here? The main text indicates the barracks and training duties were post August 1917
- That could probably use clarification - I added a "thereafter" to clarify we're talking after mid-1917
- " Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." Missing "installed" or similar after "torpedo tubes"?
- Good catch
- "During the operation, the ships operated under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Franz Mauve." "operation ... operated" is a bit repetitive, is there another wording that could be used?
- Swapped the second bit for "were commanded by"
- "Being significantly slower than the rest of the German line of battle, the ships of II Squadron saw no action during the first stages of the battle.", likewise, maybe "during the first stages of the engagement"?
- Done
- "Toward the end of the fleet battle on the evening of 31 May, the five Deutschland-class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of I Scouting Group, when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts in the British Battle Cruiser Fleet." Should be "placed", I think?
- Fixed - a typo no doubt
- "Hannover was modernized in the late 1920s", modernized again? We've already said that "All three ships were heavily modernized in the early 1920s"
- Yes, twice - have added an "again" to make that clear
- "During this period, Germany came under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy that led to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Something a bit off here, is it better as "a rearmament strategy and an aggressive foreign policy" or similar?
- That works for me
- " After the end of the Polish campaign, the ships returned to training duties, and in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea", the commas feel a bit off, perhaps: "After the end of the Polish campaign the ships returned to training duties and, in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea"?
- I think the commas are right - at the very least, the one should come before the "and", not after - I'm a little more iffy on the first one, but we might cut that knot by rewording it to "The ships returned to training duties after the Polish campaign..."
- "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." maybe "Hannover was broken up between 1944 and 1946"?
- Done, thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on prose. No big deal on the comma point - Dumelow ( talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by From Hill To Shore
I have provided my initial review below. I'll come back to the service history section later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Review complete. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Design: Do we clarify what the "fiscal year" is being referred to here either by the sources or by the German state of that time period? Fiscal years vary between countries and over time. Some follow the calendar year from January to December while some others use April to March. This could be resolved by linking to the article on fiscal years; it may encourage other editors to add a section on Germany to that article.
- That I don't know - I haven't ever seen a specific reference to how Germany defined it at the time (though I suspect it involves the 1 April date specified in the naval law. I've added a link to fiscal year.
- Design: "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships of the Braunschweig type, starting with the 1901 fiscal year with two ships built per year, but ultimately they only built five. During construction, a series of minor improvements were incorporated into subsequent designs, and by the time work began on the second vessel of the 1903 fiscal year, a more significantly altered design had been prepared." That implies the second ship in 1903 was ship number 6. I am guessing number 6 is the SMS Deutschland mentioned in the next paragraph but there is a slight disconnect there. Would it be better to phrase it as the first of the 1903 would be the last of the Braunschweig type and that the second of the 1903 would follow the new Deutschland design?
- Reworded a bit to provide clarity
- General characteristics: "The ships handled less easily than the preceding Braunschweig-class ships, though they suffered less marked weather helm." Do we have any details on how or why the ships handled less easily than the previous class? If sources are silent on this, it is fine to leave the statement as it is.
- No, unfortunately - the ships were essentially the same size and weight, and I'd assume the hull forms were more or less identical as well.
- General characteristics: "When one of them was a squadron flagship, the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 66 enlisted men; while serving as a second command ship, 2 officers and 23 enlisted men were added to her standard crew." I am assuming that is an "or" statement; the ship was either a squadron leader or a second command ship but not both at the same time. If it is an "or" statement, would it be better to give the total numbers for a squadron leader and the total numbers for a second command ship? That way readers don't try adding the 3 sets of numbers together.
- Yes, an "or" - see if how I reworded it is an improvement
- Yes, that is much clearer, thanks. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, an "or" - see if how I reworded it is an improvement
- Machinery: "These were divided into three boiler rooms, each of which was ducted into a funnel." I would tend to say "each of which were" as we are talking about multiple boiler rooms. However, this could be one of those regional rules of English similar to the collective noun problem, so feel free to ignore if the sentence is gramatically correct in the style of English used for the article.
- Yeah, that's a British/American thing
- Machinery: "though on trials all five ships exceeded both figures..." Out of curiosity, do we know where the trials were conducted? The choice of testing location can affect the results of the speed test, due to efficiency of the engines in different depths of water. If sources are silent on this, feel free to ignore.
- Nothing specific to these ships, but I have seen references to other vessels built during WWI having been constrained to the western Baltic for their trials (which resulted in lower trials speeds), so I'd assume further out in the Baltic or in the North Sea
- Machinery: "Schleswig-Holstein was the fastest member of the class." Do we know if that was under trial conditions or actual service?
- Clarified this was from the trials - I haven't seen any references to their service speeds (which of course can change at various loadings)
- Machinery: "Deutschland was designed to carry 700 t (690 long tons; 770 short tons) of coal and the other members could carry 850 t (840 long tons; 940 short tons), though additional spaces could be utilized as fuel storage, which increased fuel capacity to 1,540 to 1,750 t (1,520 to 1,720 long tons; 1,700 to 1,930 short tons)." For the figures related to the additional spaces, do the figures follow the same pattern as the first half of the sentence? As in, Deutschland had 700t normally but could increase to 1,540t, while the others had 850t normally but could increase to 1,750t? Or does the range for the additional fuel capacity apply equally to all five vessels?
- The former is correct - have split the range for clarity
- Machinery: "Electrical power was supplied from four turbo-generators that supplied 260 kilowatts (350 hp) each at 110 volts." Is it worth linking to Turbo generator?
- Good idea
- Armament: "The primary armament comprised four 28 cm SK L/40..." Are we missing a link here? All the other guns are linked in infobox and the first mention in the article; this one just has an infobox link.
- It's linked in the first paragraph of the design section
- Ah, I see. I did a word search for "SK L/40," so didn't spot the earlier link on "28 cm (11 in) gun." From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's linked in the first paragraph of the design section
- Armament: "These were placed in casemates in hull sponsons, in embrasures in the superstructure, and in open mounts." I assume this is trying to say that the guns were arranged in three different types rather than them being in hull sponsonsons with embrasures and them also having the mount open. I would suggest rephrasing the sentence, perhaps by replacing that "and" with "or."
- Done
- Armament: "The ships were temporarily fitted with four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) machine cannon, but these were quickly removed." Do we have a time period for this temporary placement? Were they there at the time of commissioning but removed in the first year, or were they added and removed later?
- That's all I know, unfortunately - they're mentioned in Groener and Gardiner, but Dodson doesn't discuss them at all. The ten ships built a decade earlier (the Kaiser Friedrich III and Wittelsbach classes) carried a dozen of them, and I'd assume they were retained in the next set of ten ships due to inertia, but Germans realized quickly that guns of that caliber were useless against the latest torpedo boats and got rid of them to save weight.
- Armament: "These weapons were 5.15 m (16.9 ft) long and carried a 147.5 kg (325 lb) TNT warhead. They could be set at two speeds for different ranges." By "these weapons" I assume that we have switched from talking about the torpedo tubes to the torpedoes themselves; it wasn't until I got to the setting of speeds that I realised the subject had changed slightly. Perhaps use "These torpedoes" instead of "These weapons." You could then use "weapons" after the 26 knots statement in the next sentence, to avoid overuse of torpedoes.
- Done
- Armor: "Deutschland had a slightly different arrangement in the belt armor and the citadel..." Is it worth linking to Armored citadel?
- Done
- Armor: "Her sister ships' belts was increased..." Should that be "were"?
- Good catch
- Modifications: "Schlesien had her two forward funnels merged together, while Schleswig-Holstein had hers similarly modified in 1928." Do we have an indication on the timing of Schlesien's change in funnels? The sentence implied that it came before 1928 but are we talking about a difference of weeks or years?
- During the mid-1920s refit mentioned earlier in the paragraph
- Modifications: "Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." I think we are missing a word after torpedo tubes there, or else there is an extraneous "were" later in the sentence. The second "and" also makes the sentence a little long; could the bit about the mast be added to the next sentence on the sponsons?
- I think this was fixed in Dumelow's section above
- Modifications: "Schlesien received four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) L/83 anti-aircraft guns..." Do we know if this is referring to 3.7 cm SK C/30? The weapon article lists it as an L/83 and says the weapon type was used on this class of battleship.
- Yes, those are the same
- Modifications: "In August, Schlesien had her 3.7 cm guns taken off and Schleswig-Holstein was almost completely disarmed, retaining only her 28 cm guns. The following year, she received four 8.8 cm guns, four 3.7 cm guns, and three 2 cm guns." In the second sentence, which vessel is "she"?
- Schlesien - good catch
- World War I: "when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts..." I think that should be placed.
- Dumelow also got that one
- Inter-war years: "which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy..." This doesn't read quite right; I'd suggest either removing the "a" before rearmament or adding extra words. For example, "a process of rearmament."
- Also fixed per Dumelow - see how it reads now
- I'm happy with the revised wording. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also fixed per Dumelow - see how it reads now
- World War II: "Schleswig-Holstein steamed to Danzig, Poland..." This is technically incorrect, as Danzig was not part of Poland at the time. It was the Free City of Danzig. I'd suggest removing Poland from the sentence and using the Free City link; that way the correct context can be read in the linked article.
- Good point
- World War II: "culminating in the Polish surrender on 7 September..." I assume this means the surrender of local Polish forces as Poland was still fighting a month after that and never formally surrendered to Germany. It might be worthwhile clarify which forces surrendered here.
- Good point, clarified
- World War II: "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." It isn't vitally important but do we know where the ship was being broken up? Readers may be curious whether it was dismantled in the eastern or western occupation zones (the zones predating the formation of the east and west German states in 1949). If sources are silent, feel free to ignore.
- Added. Thanks very much! Parsecboy ( talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have added a few replies above. I'm happy to support this promotion to FA. Good work. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks very much! Parsecboy ( talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
- Who wrote the German chapter in Conway's?
- Updated the refs
- The sources are known to me as highly RS.
- Sources and citations are properly formatted.
- The isbn for Campbell is for the 1998 Lyons Press reprint
- Fixed - must have been looking at the original publication info
- ISBN spotchecks for other sources all OK.
- Prose spotchecks not made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- What about the 1860-1905 volume?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot about that one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot about that one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- What about the 1860-1905 volume?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
William Lyon Mackenzie
- Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.
There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1#SandyGeorgiaSandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Image review—pass
- File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Reform movement. - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed
- He is considered the best-known Reformer of the early-1800s. - bit wishy to me. Best-known could mean two things here. The best known person who was a reformer, or the person best known for being a reformer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- What about "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Much better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- What about "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- Dundee, Scotland - no need to link Scotland. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Removed
- gold medal and chain - is this a gold medal and a chain, or a gold medal and gold chain? (Or, a medal and chain combination that is gold). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say, and the source says the medal was worth £250 so I removed "and chain" Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838) - do we need this info/navbox here? Seems out of place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- This was placed before I started editing the article. I tried moving it to the bottom of the article but the formatting was weird. I am not sure if it should go somewhere else, so I removed it, as most of those links are in the article already. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, doesn't need to be there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- This was placed before I started editing the article. I tried moving it to the bottom of the article but the formatting was weird. I am not sure if it should go somewhere else, so I removed it, as most of those links are in the article already. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is Rensselaer Van Rensselaer part of the Van Rensselaer (family)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. The family name is wikilinked later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Small suggestion - create a redirect for the name to that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am keeping Rensselaer Van Rensselaer as a red link in case his own article is created in the future. I changed the wikilink of "his family name" to "the Van Rensselaer family name" so its clearer where the wikilink is going. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Small suggestion - create a redirect for the name to that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. The family name is wikilinked later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- He was released on $5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019) - hmm, this article uses GBP in most places. If we are to use a converter, perhaps they should all go to pounds? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Something similar was expressed by a previous reviewer. I think most readers would understand that Mackenzie is paying his bail and fines in USD because he was arrested by the American legal system. Would posting the inflation in GBP cause the reader wonder why the inflation is calculated to a different currency? Also, would the conversion from USD to GBP happen before inflation is calculated, or after? I decided to keep the inflation converstion in USD because it was the simplest thing to do at the time. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
- Mostly all fine. No real issues. Seems very good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lee, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: in case they didn't see the responses above. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Naught to worry about, happy to support, but I have made some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: in case they didn't see the responses above. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lee, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lee, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
HF
I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am in the same boat. As the review is lengthy, I am going to unwatch for now; please ping me when Johannes Schade is finished reviewing (and I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Dear User:SandyGeorgia It seems I deleted your comment above by working on an old version. I am so sorry this happened. I am finished with my contribution here, if it was one. Z1720 and I got both a bit tired of it. You say "I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk". I have move the conversation to Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie. With thanks, apologies, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I put a copy of JS's review on WLM's FAC talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Dear User:SandyGeorgia It seems I deleted your comment above by working on an old version. I am so sorry this happened. I am finished with my contribution here, if it was one. Z1720 and I got both a bit tired of it. You say "I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk". I have move the conversation to Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie. With thanks, apologies, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments
- "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor, but he was not reelected the following year." - This makes it sound a bit like he lost election, when he really wasn't actively running. Rephrase?
- What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
- That would work wonderfully.
- Done
- That would work wonderfully.
- What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
- ". He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - Not sure that the hyphen is needed
- Removed
- What the Family Compact was is explained in the lead, but not really in the body.
- Removed pre-1833 references to the Family Compact, explained who they were when they were named by Mackenzie in Sketches of Upper Canada in 1833.
- Second paragraph of Election to the Legislative Assembly, four of five sentences all start with "He". Can this be varied some?
- Replaced one "He" with "Mackenzie". I tried rearranging sentences but it's difficult in this section. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "with each new constituency (also known as a riding) " - Piped link Riding (division)#Canada?
- Done
- "Van Rensselaer, Mackenzie and 24 supporters occupied Navy Island on December 14" - Link Navy Island
- Done
- "Durham sent an agent to interview Mackenzie, who reported that Mackenzie's grievance was with the composition of the Legislative Council vague references "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil" - Something seems off here grammatically to me. Missing a word?
- The grammar was off, I reworded this sentence. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "calling the legislature illegitimate after the Governor-General reinstated the Mackenzie-Cartier Administration without an election" - Is this an error for Macdonald-Cartier?
- Not sure what you mean. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
- You are correct. Fixed.
- I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
- Not sure what you mean. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - From the lead - I didn't see this explicitly stated in the body
- From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's fine as is. Just me not seeing something.
- From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Good work. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: - replies above. Getting close to supporting. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Replied above. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2 b, 2c, 4, and source reliability and formatting. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Replied above. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
- Added info in the body. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I cross-referenced the lede and the body to fix this. It's ready for another check. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added info in the body. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
- Removed the ones that would be off-topic to explain, added info for the ones that were not described. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
- Done
- FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
- Added
- FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
- Added. The other articles are accessed with online editions of the sources and a link is provided. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
- They should be oldest-first, but the Gates sources were in the wrong order. I fixed it. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
- I removed the archive link. I think it broke because it couldn't archive the Proquest website. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
- Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
- I assume you are referring to Dent. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
- Done
- Hamil is missing publisher
- Fixed
- What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
- A review of his book was conducted in the The Canadian Historical Review, an academic journal: [44]. It was republished by McGill-Queen's University Press [45] and Carleton University Press [46] Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- WorldCat and Google say Dundurn, so I changed Gates's reference to Dundurn. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria. I have commented above. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, a few days ago an editor converted the newspaper articles from to sfn. Do you have any concerns about this change? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not required, and if you were so inclined you could revert per CITEVAR. But if that is not an issue it's not a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind the change, just wanted to make sure it didn't change the result of your source review. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Support by GP!
- Support: As the GA reviewer for this article a few months ago, I have watched its steady improvement over the past several weeks and have deliberately refrained from commenting here until some other uninvolved editors had a chance to look. Their reviews in tow, I am confident that my own impression has been confirmed, which is that this article is incisive, well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, neutral, and interesting, representing the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. As such, I am delighted to offer my support to this FA nomination (based on assessment of criteria 1, 2, and 4 ... I have not independently examined images). Go Phightins! 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tkbrett
- Lede
- "He published his first newspaper in 1824 called Colonial Advocate": this reads a little awkwardly. You use "the" before Colonial Advocate throughout the article, so I presume "He published his first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824" would be fine.
- Done
- "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor" can be made active as "... and the city council elected Mackenzie its first mayor."
- Done
- Prose
- "Dundee Advertiser" -> "Dundee Advertiser newspaper".
- Kilbourn doesn't specify if the Advertiser is a newspaper, so I added Sewell as a reference to verify the info. Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1811 he was a...": comma needed after 1811.
- Done
- "His congregation agreed to baptise James after a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence was paid to the church and Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child.": passive voicing can be made active as "... after Mackenzie paid a fine of..."
- I tried flipping the sentence but it felt like it was dragging and long because Mackenzie's punishment is a large part of the sentence. Suggestions?
- In the source, is it saying that the church agreed to baptise Mackenzie's son only after he paid the fine and endured public criticism? Or did the church only require the fine and the public criticism is a separate thought? If it's the latter, I think the sentence can be split. Perhaps: "Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child. His congregation agreed to baptise James only after he paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." If it's the former, then I think it should be flipped to make it clearer that these two punishments were joined: "His congregation agreed to baptise James after Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child and paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source says he had to do both before James could be baptised. I used your second sentence. Z1720 ( talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In the source, is it saying that the church agreed to baptise Mackenzie's son only after he paid the fine and endured public criticism? Or did the church only require the fine and the public criticism is a separate thought? If it's the latter, I think the sentence can be split. Perhaps: "Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child. His congregation agreed to baptise James only after he paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." If it's the former, then I think it should be flipped to make it clearer that these two punishments were joined: "His congregation agreed to baptise James after Mackenzie endured public criticism for fathering an illegitimate child and paid a fine of thirteen shillings and fourpence to the church." Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tried flipping the sentence but it felt like it was dragging and long because Mackenzie's punishment is a large part of the sentence. Suggestions?
- Inflation equivalencies across the article use a lot more significant figures than I think are necessary. For example: "£625 (equivalent to £52,521 in 2016)". Rounding it to 53,000 would be preferable. Others include: "£250 (equivalent to £24,272 in 2016)", "£1,000 (equivalent to £94,340 in 2016)", "$5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019)", "$12,000 (equivalent to $321,766 in 2019)".
- These are calculated using a template so that the numbers are updated when the template is updated. I'm not sure how to round the money. Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Inflation provides some info on this under rounding where it mentions to avoid excessive precision. If we add
r=-3
to the template this will eliminate the precision of the last three digits. For example:£625 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|start_year=1826|value=625|fmt=eq|r=-3|cursign=£}})
→ £625 (equivalent to £53,000 in 2016). Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for the info! I rounded all the numbers except the $10 fine (with inflation $241). Z1720 ( talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Inflation provides some info on this under rounding where it mentions to avoid excessive precision. If we add
- These are calculated using a template so that the numbers are updated when the template is updated. I'm not sure how to round the money. Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Lieutenant governor is spelled differently across the article, whether with or without a hyphen and either capitalized or not, including: "Lieutenant-Governor Peregrine Maitland", "advisory committee to the lieutenant governor of Upper Canada", "Upper Canada Lieutenant Governor John Colborne", "new lieutenant-governor Francis Bond Head", "the authoritarian power of the lieutenant-governor." Presumably this should be standardized, unless I'm missing something.
- You are right, it should be standardised. Sources don't agree on the spelling, but since its spelt "lieutenant governors" in the Wikipedia article, that is what I have used and I changed the article accordingly. Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- pipe Niagara River to Niagara River
- Done
- "on December 14 and Mackenzie proclaimed the State of Upper Canada on the island": I believe State of Upper Canada can be piped to Republic of Canada.
- Done
- pipe "represented himself" to Pro se legal representation in the United States
- Done
- Durham Report is piped twice.
- Done
- "Mackenzie proposed abolishing of the Court of Chancery, ..." -> "Mackenzie proposed abolishing the Court of Chancery, ..."
- Good catch. Done
- "and he was removed from the committee by the Parliament in retaliation" can be made active as "and the Parliament removed him from the committee in retaliation."
- Done
- Additional comments
- copyvio score is a good 33% (Violation Unlikely).
- This is my first ever time commenting on a FAC, but it seemed like a good place to start given my love of newspapers and Canadian history. This page is superb. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support. Tkbrett (✉) 01:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. Comments above (and one question) Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed both the baptism sentence and the inflation. Z1720 ( talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your hard work on this incredibly important Canadian history page. It's a great read! Proud to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed both the baptism sentence and the inflation. Z1720 ( talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. Comments above (and one question) Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Ceoil
- pursued the policy proposals - ppp. Also what does presued here mean...supported or enforced
- supported. I reworded the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- He was successful in criticising government officials .. what does "successful in criticising" actually mean. Criticising takes no effort.
- Changed to "He was a popular politician because of his criticism of government officials"
- ok. reworded this Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- provoked an armed conflict - "rose in"....otherwise its is as if the fooled their buddies into doing so
- I mean, he did kind of fool his buddies into supporting him...what about "initiated"? Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes better. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very good overall, just small quibbles from the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada where he investigated government corruption - add the year
- Done
- an unsuccessful invasion of Upper Canada in the Patriot War - during the patriot war, or in what became known as
- I couldn't find a source that said "This is when it was first referred to as the Patriot War." Historians refer to these events as the Patriot War, and I found a source where Van Buren refers to the events as the Patriot War in 1839. I'm comfortable with keeping it as-is. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not, and its quite important, ie did he initiate or was it an element of. Please read up on the Patriot War of 1839 and revert Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think I misread your first comment in this section; I thought you were asking if the war was referred to as the "Patriot War" while the war was ongoing. Mackenzie was an element in recruiting for the Patriot War, as outlined by Gates [47]. I changed the wording slightly to remove the implication that he initiated the Patriot War. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- struggled to implement - is "struggled" a nice word for "failed"
- Mostly. Some of his policy objectives were successful or partially implemented, but the majority failed. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Lets go so with "majority failed"
- I went with "failed to implement most of his policy objectives" Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- organised American support to invade Upper Canada and overthrow the Upper Canadian government ...overthrow it's government?. also rallied is better than organised
- Yep, they were going to overthrow the government and create the State of Upper Canada. I replaced rallied with organised. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. He was pardoned by the American president - how long did he actual serve Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Less than a year. Should this be mentioned in the lede? Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, for clarity...I assumed no time at all Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added.
- Thanks
- Comments above. Z1720 ( talk) 01:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from TRM
- Upper Canada Rebellion overlinked in the lead alone.
- Fixed. I ctr+f'ed Upper Canada Rebellion to make sure it was not overlinked. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link Upper Canada on its first use.
- Done
- "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early 1800s." bold claim, according to whom? And I guess you mean specifically an "Upper Canada Reformer"?
- In the "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Is further action needed? Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, I think that's ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In the "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Is further action needed? Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Canada in 1820" comma after Canada.
- Done
- Link Toronto.
- I wasn't sure about this per MOS:OVERLINK, so I asked Wikipedia Discord and they said it should be linked, so I have linked it. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "first mayor" first should be part of the pipe.
- Done
- It's like the lead has a lead, the first para of the lead is a synopsis of the next two...!
- I agree. The lede struggled with explaining why Mackenzie was notable, but I think I added too much detail to the first paragraph. I tried trimming it, but suggestions are welcome. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "for over ten months" more than.
- Done
- "State of New York" is that a formal name? Our article allows for "New York State" but not "State of New York" thus capitalised.
- The wiki article says, "New York State" and "state of New York" so I aligned the article with that structure. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "was a weaver" also a weaver (on the second usage).
- Done
- "public dance, Daniel became sick" I assume there's some intended causality here, any explanation at all as to what this is all about? Severe hangover...
- Raible says he "caught a cold" but I think that's too general to place in the article. Kilbourn says he "suddenly became ill". Biographi and Sewell don't mention a cause of death. It seems like he caught some sort of illness after attending this dance and died because of it. I don't know if "caught an illness" is jargon or not, and I don't know how else to phrase this. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well no-one else has made anything of this, perhaps it's just me, so not worth pursuing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Raible says he "caught a cold" but I think that's too general to place in the article. Kilbourn says he "suddenly became ill". Biographi and Sewell don't mention a cause of death. It seems like he caught some sort of illness after attending this dance and died because of it. I don't know if "caught an illness" is jargon or not, and I don't know how else to phrase this. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "after his son" make it clear this is William you're talking about, I'm not certain at this point if he had any siblings etc.
- Replaced "his son" with "William"
- "independently.[9] She instructed" merge, "independently and instructed"
- Done
- Isn't the Dundee Advertiser the The Courier (Dundee)?
- After looking at The Courier article, I think you are right. Wikilinked.
- "to his son" isn't it "their" son?
- Done
- "baptise" v "summarize" I assume this is okay in Canadian English?
- Did a Google search, it should be "baptize" in Canadian English. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "thirteen shillings and fourpence" link this to an appropriate LSD article and also consider inflating so we get an idea what that actually means these days.
- Does "LSD" refer to £sd? If so, I wikilinked it. Added inflation template. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link Montreal on its first use.
- Done
- "son James joined" did he have any other sons? If not, we already know his name from previous section.
- At this time, he doesn't have other children so removed. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- No further mention of Isabel Reid, did she just disappear from the scene?
- Pretty much. Most biographers don't mention her, Biographi says "Nothing is known of the mother, Isabel Reid,"
- "His mother invited..." James' mother or William's mother? Last "He" was James.
- Changed "His mother" to "Elizabeth" Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to "The Colonial Advocate..." section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments above, and a question. Thanks for your review! Z1720 ( talk) 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "press to create the" create->publish.
- organised - is that Canadian Eng?
- Google says it's organized, so I changed it in all instances in the document. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- he wrote -> he had written.
- I assume this is at "inscription he had written". Changed
- "the paper had the highest circulation among York newspapers" paper .. newspapers, repetitive. Perhaps replace the first one with the name of it again.
- Done
- "In 1826, a ... " Mackenzie is mentioned three times in one sentence...
- Rephrased
- "nearby bay" put nearby in the pipe.
- Done
- ""two representatives" is that the same as Member of Parliament (Canada)?
- No. Parliament of Canada doesn't exist yet (Province of Canada is created in 1841, Canadian Confederation happens in 1867). There's a lengthy discussion about this on the FAC talk page, but basically none of the sources described the official title of legislators in the Parliament of Upper Canada, (it could be MLA, MP, MPP, or something else) so I only used general job titles like "representative" and "legislator".
- "evaluated... evaluated" repetitive.
Changed the first "evaluated" to "assessed"
- Church of England - could link.
- Done
- Link Quebec City.
- Done
- "with Reform leaders" vs "the reform leaders"
- Fixed
- Link Colonial Office.
- Done
- criticised - should that be criticized?
- Yep. I ctr+f'ed and fixed all instances. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link Tory.
- Wikilinked to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
- "while James FitzGibbon" context, who's that?
- Added "a magistrate in York"
- "submit grievances" -> "submit the grievances" (you've already mentioned them)
- Done
- the Legislature or the legislature?
- Small case, unless it's the formal title of something. Fixed and ctr+f'ed to fix throughout article. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Lord Stanley" no article?
- Found him, done.
- ""the Legislature would not let him participate in the legislature" clunky. And L/l again.
- reworded.
That takes me to "Upper Canada politics", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! comments above. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""city council. ... Toronto city council" repetitive.
- Changed "Toronto city council" to "the council"
- "the highest amount among all candidates" amount is not required.
- Removed amount.
- Could link mayor appropriately here (as you have in the lead).
- Done
- Link Ticket (election).
- Done
- "with each new constituency" avoid repeat, maybe 'each new sub-division'?
- What about "section"?
- Sure. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- What about "section"?
- "Grievances.[85] The committee interrogated" merge to avoid repeat of "committee".
- Done
- Anglican church - we'd normally capitalised Church in this usage.
- Done
- "with the reform movement.[91] " Reform or reform? There are a few of these throughout.
- Yeah, this has been discussed before. If it's the political party, it's Reform, if it's the political ideology, political movement, or it's the verb, it's lowercase. This creates a lot of grey zone. I ctr+f'ed this and I think I changed all instances to the correct capitalisation. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Constitution on July 4, 1836. The Constitution accused" repetitive.
- Done
- "meeting with reformers dubbed" Reformers?
- Yep, done.
- "He spent the summer..." who? Mackenzie or Bond Head?
- Changed to Mackenzie
- "the Patriotes asking Mackenzie to" asking him.
- Done
- "other reform leaders" Reform?
- Done
- "sent a warning to Mackenzie about" -> "sent him a warning about"
- Done
- "Lount instead. Lount responded" -> "Lount instead who responded"
- Done
- "the leader of the rebellion, Anthony Anderson" previous text said he was one of the two leaders?
- Removed
- "sympathised" is that Canadian Eng?
- Fixed
- Link British Empire.
- Done
- "invasion of a country that the US government had not declared war against" -> "invasion of a country against which the US government had not declared war"
- Done
- ""in the Caroline affair and the" overlinked.
- Removed second wikilink
- "witnesses giving" to give.
- Done
- ""Mackenzie was denied permission"" He was...
- Done
- "so John Montgomery arranged" context, who is he?
- Added a blurb on who Montgomery is.
- "editor. Mackenzie became" He became.
- Done
- "July 1844, he was" Mackenzie. Try to mix it up a little, previous para has "Mackenzie" for two consecutive sentences and then "he" for the next four...
- I tried to put new sentence-starters in these paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some "equivalent" values are dated to 2016, some to 2019, why the difference?
- Template:inflation has different years listed for GBP and USD. I don't want to set dates because I want the templates to update as the article ages. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have noticed that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:inflation has different years listed for GBP and USD. I don't want to set dates because I want the templates to update as the article ages. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the New York Tribune" New-York.
- Done
- "the Tribune until" italics.
- Done
That's up to "Return to Canada". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your excellent comments! Responses above. I look forward to more later. Z1720 ( talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "to investigate the causes of the rebellion" -> "to investigate its causes".
- Done
- "Mackenzie for the report. Mackenzie told"" -> "Mackenzie for the report who told"
- done
- "and he wanted" and that he wanted
- I'm going to disagree. The source states that these were two separate grievances, and this change would link them in a way that is not verified. The quote from the source (Gates 73): "From him I could extract no reference to any specific grievance beyond the composition of the Legislative Council and the vague statement that they wanted "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil"" Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Baldwin-Lafontaine" Baldwin is overlinked and I think that hyphen should probably be an en-dash.
- Changed to an en-dash. Removed Baldwin's wikilink
- "first responsible government" what does that mean?
- I don't think it's important in this article so I removed it. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- "including a movement for an " including one for...
- Done
- "Greely" our article has him at Greeley.
- Fixed
- (Link Whig earlier wherever it appears first).
- Done, linked to Whig Party (United States) because its referring to their newspapers.
- "H.N. Case," two things here, I would {{nowrap}} it and would space out H. N.
- Done
- "denounced the court's practice" denounced its practice
- Done
- "from Baldwin's colleagues for his project caused Baldwin"" caused him.
- Done
- "the MacNab-Morin coalition" again I think that should be an en-dash.
- Done
- "Accounts and its reports" is it more like "while"?
- Done, I think while is an improvement.
- "and Parliament removed" what's the strategy on capitalisation of P/parliament outside its fully formal title?
- After reading MOS:INSTITUTIONS, I think that, unless I am referring to the proper name of the institution, it should not be capitalised. I ctr+f'ed this in the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""with the Clear Grits of George Brown" what are those? Explanation needed.
- Clarified that Clear Grits are a new political movement in Canada West, removed George Brown's name. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is re-election hyphenated or not?
- It is, I ctr+f'ed and fixed this in the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Macdonald-Cartier Administration" en-dash and why is admin capitalised?
- En-dash placed, admin no longer capitalised.
- "Brown-Dorion Administration" ditto.
- Done
- "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" etc.
- Done
- "a half-mile and"" maybe "half a mile (0.8 km)".
- Done
That takes me to "Writing style", not far to go! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- "and used too many footnotes" in her opinion.
- Added
- "described ... described..." repetitive.
- Changed some of these.
- "invented quotations he would misattribute" -> "invented misattributed quotations"
- Done
- "issues he advocated for " issues for which he advocated.
- Done
- "constantly ... constantly" repetitive.
- Changed one to frequently
- (Horace Greeley is now overlinked).
- Done
- Link Whig first time.
- It's first instance is in the newspaper name The Buffalo Whig and Journal so I don't think it's appropriate. Whig is wikilinked in it's second instance.
- Ah, hence some confusion now: two "Whig" links, but to different targets, confusing for the reader without some context in those pipes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Added clarifiers before each instance of Whig, if appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, hence some confusion now: two "Whig" links, but to different targets, confusing for the reader without some context in those pipes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's first instance is in the newspaper name The Buffalo Whig and Journal so I don't think it's appropriate. Whig is wikilinked in it's second instance.
- "John Charles Dent said" who's he?
- Added text to explain who he is.
- "John Sewell said"" similar.
- Added text to explain who he is
- Our article capitalises Social Gospel.
- Done
- criticised - CanEng?
- Done
- proselytise - likewise?
- Done
- "George Brown wrote" who he?
- He was introduced as a political opponent of Mackenzie in "Return to the Legislature".
- "John King called " same
- He was introduced in the "Political philosophy" section as Mackenzie's son-in-law
- "the Lower Canada Rebellion, Louis" overlinked.
- Removed Lower Canada Rebellion link, this is the first time Papineau is mentioned so I think it's appropriate to link.
That's it! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Sorry for my delayed response: real life has been busy. Comments above. Also, some of my responses have questions that might need a follow-up. Thanks again for your review! Z1720 ( talk) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is in a really good condition, good work. I responded above but nothing now to prevent my support. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Support from theJoebro64
Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64
Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
- Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64
Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
Comments from 👨x🐱
Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.
- Initial comments and lead
- I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
- Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
- "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
- An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?
More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Plot
- This section two major issues
- One, even though it's well under 700 words, it still feels like a list of scenes in order instead of a concise summary.
- Two, while I understand sentence length variation is importance and it's fine to have short sentences here and there, I feel this section has too many of them and the prose is choppy in some spots.
- Cast
- Looks good, character descriptions keep true to sources cited. On a side note, however, can I just it's weird that the Variety source refers to Rene by the actor's name?
- Ref 11 does give character names and actors for Musgrove of Eaton, but doesn't specify they have those positions for the U.S. Army.
- I do, however, need to state that Ref 10, cited first in this section, is url= linked to a BBC article different from what I expected. The archiveurl link at least is correct, but not the url= link.
- What is the Bantu Wind? This is the first section it is brought up.
👨x🐱 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed a few short sentences by integrating them into larger ones. As for the plot itself, as you say it's well under the word limit, I've refined and refined it down to it's bare bones, but I do not believe anything there is unnecessary. It's a constantly moving story that switches locations frequently, and every element mentioned is relevant to a different part of the story. It's as tight a summary of the key elements as you could ask for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Anthro, god catch on ref 10, I've fixed that and the other issues. I've added some additional references for the US army guys, it's bizarrely difficult to find sources on the "Top Men" guys. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging HumanxAnthro. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Production section in general
- Some multi-cites are not in increasing numerical order. "[16][20][21][13]" "[20][21][13][22]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That simply comes from invoking previously used citations (and evidently not the same order they were first used within the article). I don't see a problem with this as long as they support the attributed text. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- They were in order but as I've had to tweak things, they've fallen out of order. It's fine, I'll fix it. Thanks both. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Friendly ping @ HumanxAnthro because they're as beautiful, fleeting, and uncatchable as the wind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Conception
- Sorry this is taking so long, because checking if the citations correctly cite the info is taking a long time because the sources are so long to read. Anyone, it looks mostly good, but I'm skeptical about the following:
- "In 1975, Lucas discussed his serial film idea with his friend Philip Kaufman. The pair worked on a script for two weeks." Source state they "worked on the story for two weeks". The story and screenplay are too different things from what I understand.
- "In May 1977, Lucas vacationed in Hawaii to avoid the potential failure of the theatrical debut of Star Wars." "Potential failure"? The sources do state the meeting took place the day after the premiere and admits they were anticipating Star Wars' first-day performance, but that doesn't indicate it had the potential to fail. Am I missing something
👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- HumanxAnthro, I've changed the wording a little, I definitely recall reading something about its potential failure but I may have misread it from "not sure if it would suceed" or something along those lines, so I've just changed it closer to the reference which is he was avoiding the hype of the opening, good or bad. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- HumanxAnthro, I've changed the wording a little, I definitely recall reading something about its potential failure but I may have misread it from "not sure if it would suceed" or something along those lines, so I've just changed it closer to the reference which is he was avoiding the hype of the opening, good or bad. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update (5/27/21)
- Just to keep myself active in this discussion, I will say the prose is looking great in the production sections overall. Again, it's just that there's so many sources to spotcheck and they're so long that it's taking a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Media review from SNUGGUMS
Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:
- File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
- Since there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Harrison Ford by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg, File:Steven Spielberg by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg, File:Philip Kaufman 03.jpg, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:Frank Marshall Deauville 2012.jpg, File:Sahara close to Tozeur (Tunisia).jpg, File:Disneyindytruck1.jpg, File:Ark of covenant replica.jpg. File:Paul Freeman.jpg, File:Richard Edlund 1 (2).jpg (an extract from File:Richard EDLUND 1.jpg), are the uploaders' own works as claimed
- I'm unsure what to say about the licensing for File:Karenallen17 cropped.jpg. It isn't clear whether the file you derived this from (File:KarenAllen17.jpg) is something the original poster took on their own or got from elsewhere. File:Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.jpg has a similar ambiguity.
- No copyright concerns with File:George Walton Lucas.jpg, File:Tom Selleck at PaleyFest 2014.jpg. File:Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (cropped).jpg, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Berlin, Aufmarsch der SA in Spandau.jpg, File:Indy and Marion.jpg. Just maybe remove the italics from years in some captions.
- What benefit does File:John Williams The Raiders' March from Raiders of the Lost Ark.ogg provide aside from serving as an ear-treat for fans? Don't get me wrong; I very much enjoy the theme song myself, just not seeing how it meets WP:NFCC#8.
- Are trailers really appropriate to include as external links? It comes off as promotional.
- Even though it seems to be a free upload, File:Sean Connery (1983).jpg feels decorative here and would be better for the Last Crusade article since that's when we're introduced to Henry Jones Sr.
More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
- I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Other comments from SNUGGUMS
Resolved |
---|
While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from A. Parrot
- Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot
Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot ( talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot ( talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot
Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review
- All sources appear to be of high quality.
- Works cited:
- Use single quotes inside the double quotes
- I would add the editor to Excavating Indiana Jones: Essays on the Films and Franchise
- Further reading:
- Why is Ballantine Books linked twice but not the third time?
- Spot checks:
- fn 82, 106, 108, 121, 152, 203 - all good
- fn 76:
Can you re-check this? The table in the source doesn't seem to be right to me.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your input. I've addressed the points raised except the last. Could you clarify what you want me to check? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to have been a problem loading at archive.org. Working now. Struck issue. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your input. I've addressed the points raised except the last. Could you clarify what you want me to check? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Huaynaputina
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Fowler&fowler
- Making a placeholder for myself. Won't say much for now beyond smoothing the language in the early sentence: "Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andean Volcanic Belt, it is the product of the subduction of the oceanic Nazca tectonic plate beneath the continental part of the South American tectonic plate." Why so cumbersome? Why not something like:
- "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it was formed when the oceanic Nazca Plate subducted under the continental South American Plate and its molten contents were forced up?"
- Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Would something like, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate and by the former's molten contents being forced up" be better? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- OK, then how about, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate whose mantle in molten form has been forced up."? (i.e. without going into the finer details of the process at this stage, but then adding a sentence or two in an appropriate later section.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Second paragraph, lead
- During the Holocene,
- "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.
- Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."
- Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,
- Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.
- Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)
- I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- this eruption measured 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index
- This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions
- Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."
- infrastructure a
- "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.
- Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)
- It's a bit more the modern meaning, not simply architecture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- economic resources
- This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.
- Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.
- I don't think it's that much specified beyond "agriculture". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.
- There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.
- Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.
- (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.
- That is probably a better formulation, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Third paragraph, lead
- Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.
- Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina
- lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.
- Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."
- Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area.
- "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
- "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."
- That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.
- occurred--> were to occur
- likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That's the lead. I hope I haven't made any typos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Fowler&fowler, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
- Text-source integrety okay per previous FAC. I did noticed two more citations with improper name formatting. In FN 151, van den is part of the surname. In FN176 there is a double surname again formatted as a non-Spanish surname. Check if that is consistent throughout. FN160 seems dead. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene:Corrected, with the catch that I don't know much about the formatting of Spanish (sur)names. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: Should I take this as a full source review and as a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a pass :). Should have said explicitly. FemkeMilene ( talk) 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
AhmadLX
- I still think a number of technical terms need to be explained a little. Holocene, for example, should be described; something like "Holocene, the current geological epoch, ...". I will list others as I go through the article.
- Thanks for that, AhmadLX. I've added a note for Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the Southern Volcanological Observatory." Any latest information on this? Did they do so or just said and forgot it afterwards;).
- Well, this is an odd one. Google News has both an article in 2020 saying the SVO will be ready in February 2021 but earlier articles that say it already exists. This one implies it already exists. Not sure how to resolve this. I've added the seismic monitoring part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Andes not linked at its first instance.
- Isn't the lead link enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay fine.
- "Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)." This is vague. Is its base at that elevation (as "lies" would suggest)? Or the highest point on the rim? Or the floor of the amphitheatre? Should be changed to something like "The summit of Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)."
- The source does not specify and none of the others I've seen discusses this aspect. I am guessing that the unusual morphology of the volcano makes it hard to assign it a height. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- This one says " Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".
- Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.
- Yes, but as I've said this volcano does not quite have a "summit" so I am wary of interpreting it as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.
- Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- This one says " Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".
- Tephra, Speleothems: short description.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The duration of the eruption is not well constrained but may have lasted up to 12–19 hours.[94] The event ended on 6 March with ash fall;" What was happening between 20 February and 6 March?
- Added a sentence, but I invite suggestions on how to reduce the two mentions of "ash fall". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?
- Yeah, that's better; implemented it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?
- "It has been proposed as a marker for the onset of the Anthropocene." Important term; short description.
- I admit, the source there does not bother to actually state an explicit definition of the term and its importance; it's more like several allusions. Do you have a proposed explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.
- I agree that the controversy doesn't matter, but even from the source currently used it doesn't seem like everybody defines it as "a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable." Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.
- I don't think you need links for crops and livestock.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- "...while in Moquegua children were reportedly running around and women screaming." This has nothing to do with "Religious response".
- True, but I don't see a better place for it and it's kind of important. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.
- I am going to disagree on this one. I think that sentence helps underscore that this was an actual human tragedy rather than a statistical pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.
- "56.59 million tons Global [200]". [200] cites Gao et al. 2008 for the value. I couldn't find anything on Huaynaputina there.
- No, but Gao et al. 2008 points to this database which has the value. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The Huaynaputina eruption[133] decreased the amount on solar energy reaching Earth by about 1.9 W/m2." Please add % drop.
- The source doesn't mention a percentage and I am kind of iffy of applying WP:CALC here; insolation variations while small are non-trivial. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Unlink Iceland, Canada, Taiwan, California (I'm not sure about the other US states but this one is certainly well-known), Kazakhstan, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, England, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Taiwan (again), Thailand, Japan, Korea, Nepal. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX:Is there any other problem that needs addressing? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Although I believe that several of my concerns were dismissed through unconvincing arguments (both here and in PR), I, nonetheless, think that this now meets the criteria. so I support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- The Quechua name of Waynaputina from the infobox should be mentioned in the names section
- Removed it pending a source as I can't find anything endorsing that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely for sure what the value of link to List of volcanoes in Peru in the infobox is
- For people who want to know more about Peruvian volcanoes? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is the redirect El Misti the correct link in the context of " Other volcanoes in this zone from northwest to southeast include Sara Sara, Coropuna, Ampato, Sabancaya, El Misti, Ubinas, Ticsani, Tutupaca and Yucamane"?
- Yes, it's a common name for that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for about two weeks[82] and ended on 6 March;[5] the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600 - is the " an error, or is it an unclosed quote?
- An error. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Huayruro Project began in 2015 and aims to rediscover these towns" - Any update on this?
- Not that much, and what little there is is a bit too specific I think. It's more about the towns than the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- While the flora of the volcano is mentioned, fauna don't seem to be. Even if wildlife is not present on the volcano in significant numbers, I feel like that should be mentioned.
- The problem is that there is no source definitively discussing fauna in the context of Huaynaputina. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The external link is dead and should be removed or archived. If it doesn't add anything significant, just remove it.
- Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't see where the 500,000 age of rock figure from the infobox appears in the body; I may have missed it.
- It's not based on anything, just typical infobox OR. I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not all of the non-English sources state which language they are in; this should be added for all non-English sources.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:Replied to queries. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, with the understanding that the article will be updated in the future if studies on fauna on the volcano are performed. Did not check other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose from TRM
- "is a stratovolcano in" vs "Huaynaputina is a large volcanic crater" - as a non-expert these two appear to contradict one another. You then say it has "an outer stratovolcano" rather than is a stratovolcano. I'm very confused.
- I've reduced it to just "volcano". An unqualified "stratovolcano" is indeed misleading, as Huaynaputina looks quite different from a regular stratovolcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Holocene[a], Huaynaputina" horrible footnote placement.
- Moved it to after the comma, but I am not sure what other means there is to explain this piece of jargon. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "to measure 6 on the" this gives no indication to non-experts as to the severity.
- "The eruption had a " also.
- I've re-cast the paragraph that these two comments pertain to to put this line at the end; the other sentences explain the impact more clearly for non-specialists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "affected places in Europe" places reads odd to me.
- Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did it kill anyone?
- Added this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "its amphitheatre, and" you footnote the previous jargon term but wikt this one, and I know what an amphitheatre is in the Roman sense, but certainly not in the volcanic sense. Why the different approach to jargon?
- Mainly because amphitheatre isn't the kind of term that you can find a footnote-able explanation for; it's just a shape. I've put a somewhat better explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "with Huaynaputina. Huaynaputina lies" repetitive.
- How did I miss that? Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "remote region, where there" no comma required.
- Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "there are about 30,000 people living in " -> "about 30,000 people live in"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "with another 1 million" ->" and around one million"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "monitored ... monitoring" repetitive.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "View of the crater and part of the nearby valley." fragment, no full stop required.
- Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "(15,900 ft) [1]" no space before references.
- Sorry, but I don't know how to fix that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Huge table of contents creates masses of whitespace at the start of the article.
- I'll ask for assistance on WT:FAC; I tried to change this but it didn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "was given to" by whom? Locals? Officials?
- We don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The volcano El Misti was sometimes confused" in what sense? They look like each other in books? Or they're misrecognised when looking out to the distance?
- Geographers have sometimes called one volcano with the name of the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "with volcanic explosivity index of 6+" I guess you mean "6 or greater", or is there a category called 6+? Still not sure what this means contextually.
- The former, which I've added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Moquegua Region of" is that a formal title? It redirects to "Department of Moquegua"....
- Yes, that's the formal title. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The city Moquegua " -> "The city of Moquequa"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "4,850 metres (15,910 ft)" using different accuracy to infobox here.
- Matched the infobox to this; since it's not a mountain peak we cannot be very precise with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "400-metre (1,300 ft) deep.[9] This horseshoe-shaped[19] structure opens eastwards[20] and ..." perhaps just aesthetics but I find it very jarring to read through all these interspersed references. I'm certain our readers will be okay with them being grouped at the end of sentences for such mundane facts.
- I've simplified this one a bit, but the drawback of grouping is that folks need to check several references at once to verify a given statement. I am not sure if that is an improvement. Regardless, if I may, I'd like to leave the current citation format in place until everybody has reviewed the content; as I found out with Laguna del Maule (volcano) fixing any content issue is harder with grouped references. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean "margin[15] of a rectangular[22] high plateau[15] that" is just too much.
- That one's fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "by ash about 2 metres (6.6 ft) thick" ->"by about 2 metres (6.6 ft) of ash"?
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "600 m (0.37 mi) " I would stick with converting to feet, not many people recognise miles as a unit above the ground.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dunes is linked to the ones made of sand, is that what you mean?
- Yes. Sand, tephra, not really much of a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Another southeastward-opening landslide scar" was there another such landslide I missed?
- You didn't miss anything, we don't have information on this other landslide beyond the fact that it left a scar so the article doesn't say more. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""about 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide " not adjective, 400 metres.
- Same: 200-metre (660 ft) wide.
- Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- And suddenly back to spelling out units?
- Hmm, I think they all are? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I got this now. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think they all are? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "as a maar" why isn't this explained?
- "a phreatomagmatic eruption" likewise.
- "a Plinian eruption in" and this.
- "Dacitic dykes crop out ..." this whole sentence is pretty much beyond me.
- Added footnoted explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to the Geology section. The biggest concern here is the jargon and also not mad keen on all the crowbarred references. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did these things. If I may, I'd like to ask that the current reference style stay until everybody has got a chance to review the content - as mentioned before, grouped references make it harder to solve a content issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the uplift of the Andes mountains and Altiplano plateau" the uplift of both?
- Yes; clarified in text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "subduction is oblique, leading to strike-slip faulting"" unexplained jargon.
- Clarified the latter, I don't think that "oblique" is jargon? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "does not occur along the entire length" this reads odd, like it's saying it doesn't occur anywhere along the length of it.
- Honestly, I don't think that can be written differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Quaternary activity limited to the southern" what does that mean?
- Rewritten, does "Quaternary" need an explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "300–500 m-thick (0.19–0.31 mi)" convert to ft.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "from the ignimbritic" what's that?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- What does "pre-existent" mean?
- Reworded these. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "from calderas. One such caldera" merge to avoid repetition.
- Tried that and every formulation was ambiguous. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "has a similar structure as " similar to not similar as.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Tambo graben[50]"" what's a graben?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "slip faults. The faults "' repetitive.
- As before, it becomes ambiguous without the repetition. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "and recent seismic" what timeframe constitutes "recent"?
- Put "historical" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "they share a magma" link magma first time.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "are dacites, which" overlinked.
- De-overlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "which define a calc-alkaline,[55] potassium-rich suite[56] sometimes described as adakitic" lost on me, completely.
- "contain rhyolite inclusions[56] and a rhyolite matrix.[58] Andesite" likewise.
- I see, but I don't think thes ones can be trivially explained, especially since they are about composition which is really only of interest to specialists. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- 'The Huaynaputina pumices' the?
- "have a white colour" is "are white" the same thing?
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "of volatiles in " what are they?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "'The amount of volatiles in the magma appears..." magma appears four times in one sentence.
- Cut two of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "change may explain changes" repetitive.
- Cut one of them but I don't know if it's too clear now. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- 'Crustal interactions and crystal fractionation processes" what does that mean>
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "of mafic magmas" what?
- Added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "depths of more than..." depths used three times in one sentence.
- Cut one of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "new dacitic magma" overlinked.
- Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "deep andesitic magmas" andesite is already linked.
- Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to "Eruption history". Generally this section is for all intents and purposes inaccessible to anyone without some level of expert knowledge in volcanology. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be clearer now I think, but the detailed geology and in particular composition are really only of interest to people who know at least some concepts. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the Pastillo volcanic complex" no link?
- Not enough material to justify a link, especially since it's notability is merely "the volcano that Huaynaputina rises above". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "of half-a-kilometre-thick " why not just 0.5 km?
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Pleistocene" should be linked but probably first time.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- " postglacial " this redirects to Holocene, confusing for someone who isn't an expert.
- The terms are often - not always - synonymous, but the intuitive reading "after the ice age" is correct enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "flows deposits" reads odd, should it just be flow deposits?
- I don't see it? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed it. Volcanoguy 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "years before present, respectively"" Before Present is capitalised according to our article.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "respectively.[85][1] The" order.
- Switched. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The first event" is this the first eruption or the first pair of eruptions or something else?
- Changed to "the first of these". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Salinas north of Huaynaputina and" -> "Salinas, north of Huaynaputina, and"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "amphitheatr" typo.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "and was blown" -> "which was blown"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The last eruption may..." well, you mean the eruption that preceded the 1600 one, not the "last" one.
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "ejecta" is that a general term for "stuff ejected from a volcano"?
- Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess when I'm asking I mean "non-expert readers don't know this". The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Changed it to something more general. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess when I'm asking I mean "non-expert readers don't know this". The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think "personal clothing" classes as a sacrifice, perhaps an offering.
- I agree, but the other two do. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- But you can't use that for all three if it only applies to two! The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Put "offerings" in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- But you can't use that for all three if it only applies to two! The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but the other two do. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "offered sacrifices ... offered sacrifices" repetitive.
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- General: why isn't the "1600 eruption" part of the "Eruption history" section?
- If memory serves, because the subsectioning got wonky after that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "white fumes and smell of rotten eggs" well can we say actually what it is?
- "gave temperatures" recorded temperatures of?
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah you do say what the fumes are made of, but three sentences later, put them together.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- "influenced by surface waters" what does that mean?
- Means that surface waters mix into the waters that emerge at these hot springs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Up to "1600 eruption" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- ("and pyroclastic flows.[84] " overlinked in the Holocene section)
- Hmm? I only see one link. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- VEI is used as an abbreviation but not explained, add it (VEI) after the fist expanded use.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "on the 15th" avoid awkward 15th, say "four days prior" or similar.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "reports of late ash falls may be due to wind-transported ash" repetitive.
- Can't think of a better formulation, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "from Arequipa ... from Arequipa" ditto.
- This one is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Stratigraphically, the eruption deposits have been subdivided into five formations." what does that mean? Are the five formations worth noting?
- Not that much, this sentence is more for specialists. I'll move it down so that folks don't miss stuff if they skip it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- No need to link common word like ice.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "new, "Dacite 1" magma" why comma?
- Otherwise folks might think that there is both an old and a new "Dacite 1" magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- first Plinian stage" what's one of those?
- "Vulcanian eruptions" what's that?
- Same as in the preceding mentions of these terms. Would it be better to put notes here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "explosions[130] and noises that could be heard" would those be the same "noises"?
- Not all noises are explosions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- " English corsairs" is linked to privateer. That's odd for me, a very specific pipe for a general link like that.
- If memory serves, they were indeed privateers. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the viceroy of Peru sent" most sources seem to indicate that "Viceroy" is capitalised in this usage.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "tongues of fire" very evocative, not very encyclopedic.
- I know this sounds weird from me, but I am trying to write also for general audiences which can visualize what I can talk about better if some evocative formulations are used. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "form at Huaynaputina, in the form" repetitive.
- Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "in historical time" when is this?
- When there were people around to record and remember the events. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1883 eruption of Krakatoa has an article.
- As does 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
- Linked both. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "volume of tephra erupted by" overlinked.
- "of dacitic tephra" overlinked and repetitive.
- Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the eruption ... erupted" repetitive.
- Solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the dense rock equivalent of" dense-rock is usually hyphenated in this usage.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "closer to the volcano" that's some step up, how much closer?
- Source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Any chance of a tephra fallout diagram?
- I'll ask on Commons, but I don't promise anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "ashfall in Nicaragua are" context, how far away, why implausible?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to the "Local impact" section. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Ash falls, pumice falls and pyroclastic flows incinerated everything" the ash and pumice presumably didn't incinerate anything.
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Ash fall, debris flows and pyroclastic flows.." this is getting repetitive...
- Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "has been deemed" by whom?
- It doesn't seem like it was a specific person. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Bolivia mostly" comma after Bolivia.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Camaná seems to have lost its diacritic.
- It's gotten it back. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "some villages lost their entire populations" vs "The local population fled during the eruption" this are incompatible.
- Not really, in some villages everybody was killed and these who didn't fled the region. Added a "surviving" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "fatalities,[23] not counting any fatalities" repetitive
- Cut the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "after an earthquake" odd place to link earthquake...
- Unlinked, I think everybody knows what an earthquake is. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the second stage" of the eruption?
- Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "good wine" according to whom?
- Cut the adjective. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't link common words like "cattle". Or tax.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Quinistacas valley" no link?
- It has no article, and I am not sure it should have one. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""Quinistacas valley moved to Moquegua because the Quinistacas valley was" reepetitive.
- Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "as far away as in Bolivia" don't need that "in".
- Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "as far away as ... as far as" repetitive.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "city ... city" also.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "children were reportedly running around and women screaming" is that a religious response or just human nature?
- Probably the latter but I don't think there is a better section. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "their clandestine native religion" why "clandestine"?
- Because the Spanish were trying to Christianize the region back then. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- No need to link "devil".
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "horrifying storms"[205][86] which" order.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ref col in table no need to be sortable.
- Not sure how to change that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
class=unsortable
. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- I think I got this? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how to change that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- In sortable tables, every item that's linked should be linked every time as there's no guarantee which one will come first after a re-sort. Alternatively, make the table unsortable, it doesn't offer much utility here.
- Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "46 million tons of sulfate aerosols" so is that sulfuric acid or not??
- They are (mostly) the same thing but some sources say this and others that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question really. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- They are not the exact same thing. I've rewritten this on the assumption that WP:CALC applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question really. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- They are (mostly) the same thing but some sources say this and others that. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""the northern Hemisphere" shouldn't that be Northern?
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "large amount of sulfur" odd place to link sulfur.
- Nah, it's the first mention of the explicit term. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I take it that's a joke! I think it appears about seven times before that one! The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Moved the link up but I note that some of these mentions are for "sulfuric acid" not "sulfur". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I take it that's a joke! I think it appears about seven times before that one! The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, it's the first mention of the explicit term. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- "inferred from ice core data"" likewise for ice core.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to "Climate impacts", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- No need to link basic terms like "sunlight".
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "about 1.9 W/m2." this is context-free: how much does the Earth normally get? What kind of % reduction are we talking about?
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the northern hemisphere during" capitalisation consistency.
- Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "found somewhere in Iceland" is "somewhere" needed here?
- No; removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "perhaps in 1600" who thinks this? Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be saying this
- Rewrote this; I don't think that we can specifically attribute it to someone. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""the 1257 Samalas eruption and the 1453 Kuwae eruption" overlinked.
- Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- ""10% growth of Northern Hemisphere" odd place to link Northern Hemisphere.
- And "sea ice".
- Unlinked both. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "the subpolar gyre.[244] " what is that?
- The only concise definition I can find is at this source, but I am not sure if it's clear enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "1601 and 1603 tree..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- " El Niño-Southern Oscillation.[254]"" en-dash, not hyphen.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "1605 ± 5 " this is odd, I'd make it a footnote.
- I don't think it needs to be there, it's simply a margin of errors. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "last thousand years" last as of now or last as of then?
- Clarified, but now I am unsure if it's too close to the source:
Mono Lakefilled rapidly in the first half of the 17th century to brieflyreach the highest level of the past millennium
- Clarified, but now I am unsure if it's too close to the source:
- ""additional solar influence" in what sense?
- Rewrote, the source is not clear enough as to which solar minimum it's referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "of palsas in" what are they?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link oat but not barley?
- Oh you do, here "worst barley and rye harvests", so link it first time.
- Linked the first time. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "a plague outbreak" is there a more specific link for what type of plague?
- No, the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "1601 was called a "green year..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.
- Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "winter 1601–1602" of
- I think that it's clear enough that we are referring to the winter between these years. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- " Russian famine of 1601–03" 1603
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1601 Japan, Lake Suwa froze" -> In Japan in 1601
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "cities of Moquegua and Arequipa, respectively" overlinked.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "worst-case"" should be hyphenated here.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "recorded around the amphitheatre with no recorded"" repetitive.
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just the refs remaining on this first pass now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:OK, I totally missed these comments. I'll do these now... Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd expect to see all ISBNs formatted the same.
- Can they? Not all ISBNs I can find have the hyphens, but most do. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 134, pp. and space after comma.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 172: lang parameter.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 204: lang parameter.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 272: pp. and en-dash.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 290 title has --, should be en-dash.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 294, pp. and space after comma.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 300: lang parameter.
- Ref 301: lang parameter.
- Check sources for non-English text and add lang as appropriate.
- Then after that it's just resolving the awkward placement of a lot of the references.
The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:Done to here save for the awkward placement thing; partly in case someone else has issues with content and partly because a less awkward source placement makes it more awkward to verify a statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok my comments are resolved, but I can't support an article which is so fractured by references. It's horrendous to read and of no benefit at all to our readers. Everything else now seems to be in order. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:I've moved all the references that were mid-sentence so that they follow on punctuation. Perhaps that helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok my comments are resolved, but I can't support an article which is so fractured by references. It's horrendous to read and of no benefit at all to our readers. Everything else now seems to be in order. The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:Done to here save for the awkward placement thing; partly in case someone else has issues with content and partly because a less awkward source placement makes it more awkward to verify a statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Support from Volcanoguy
- Comment. I gave the article a look through and there is honestly not much I can suggest. The main thing that stood out is the introduction which seems kind of smallish for its length, especially the first paragraph. Make sure the introduction covers all of the core information in the article. Volcanoguy 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy:I've done a mini-expansion but I am not sure what else could be added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it is good enough how it is. Support. Volcanoguy 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
London and North Western Railway War Memorial
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.
I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Images are missing alt texts
- File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Support
I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Thryduulf
Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.
- The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
- Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
- Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
- I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
- Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
- Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
- Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Support by Comments from Nick-D
I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:
- The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
- The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
- Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D ( talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Sturmvogel_66
- Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
- Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
- Put the citations above the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by 👨x🐱
Hi, HJ Mitchell. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD.
- Infobox image has no alt description.
- Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
- There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
- More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
- Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
- "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
- "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
- "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
- "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
- Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
- Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
- "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
- Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
- "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
- " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
- Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
- Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
- "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
- Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
- Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
- "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.
Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Bibliography
- Do you usually have the texts before the short citations? I can't recall seeing it done this way before.
- ISBNs lack hyphens (try this tool).
- Ashplant et al. 2000: Does Ashplant normally go by his initials? Almost everyone else in this list gets a full name. Routledge could take a link.
- Biddle 2011: Ian Allan Publishing could take a link.
- Boorman 1988/2005: Is Boorman Derek Boorman? Pen and Sword Books could take a link.
- Darroch 1920: Ditto re: initials. This is out of copyright in at least some locations, so may as well add a link. Speaking of links: John Murray (publishing house).
- Hooper & Portillo 2014: Michael Portillo can take a link, as could Bantam Press.
- King 1998: Berg Publishers.
- Koureas 2007: Routledge again.
- Lambert 2018: Historic England.
- Simmons & Biddle 1997: Jack Simmons (historian) & Oxford University Press.
Citations
- Generally speaking I'd suggest sfn footnotes, though preferences obviously vary.
- #1: What does "location 1803–1830" mean?
- #14: The article from The Times is undoubtedly available online somewhere.
- #24: The "eds" is probably unnecessary here.
Source from this version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Harry, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
1987 World Snooker Championship
- Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose
This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.
Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- removed. I thought it was a commons image.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
HF
I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?
- I've tweaked the lead slightly, hopefully for the better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).
- It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could be worth a footnote, IMO, to clarify this. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena
- I've amended the lead as I didn't find a reference for him being the youngest winner in tournament history. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.
- I've linked the first instance to "foul" at Glossary of cue sports terms BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Downer needs a publisher.
- It's a self-published source, but I think it's fair to say that he is regarded as an expert. The book is sold via Snooker Scene. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.
- I normally check source reliability in my reviews, but I'm not familiar with these snooker sources at all, so I'll have to leave that for someone else. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the constructive review Hog Farm. I've tried to address all of the points that you raised - let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, source formatting, and 4; did not check others or was not familiar enough with subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments by Z1720
Please consider this a non-expert review.
- "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.
- Amended, but could perhaps still be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
- Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw this concern, as other reviewers haven't flagged this as a concern, and I think the wikilinks suffice. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.
- The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a shame, as players usually get a fine for this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with leaving it in if the source can't verify additional info. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?
- Yes, I've amended the prize fund section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.
- I've reworded this (as per a suggestion to comment on "snookers required"), hopefully this is a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
More comments will come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.
- I think this is a feature of the reference template. Help:Citation Style 1 says "When an author is cited, the date of the cited work is displayed after the author's name ... If no author is cited, the date appears after the title". Let me know if there are any exceptions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?
- It's a self-published source sold via the magazine Snooker Scene. I think it's fair to say that the work is well-regarded. It's mentioned here as "a key resource for commentators and journalists alike." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
That's it for my first round. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Round two, just one comment:
- "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion
Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added additonal comment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I added two comments above, and one below:
- For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.
- I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like all of my concerns have been resolved. I'll support this nom. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Pawnkingthree
- I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from TRM
- 1987 Embassy World Snooker Championship could be created as a plausible redirect to this article.
- Created. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.
- Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?
- Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- What about: "and had high odds against winning the tournament." or similar. The article goes into the details, and this would be a summary - but also make it clear it was the bookmakers who were against Johnson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reworded. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.
- I've removed it as there was only the one 127 break, but would be happy to reinstate it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.
- added some content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.
- Removed repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?
- That would be single-elimination tournament, which we already linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.
- Amended BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.
- Amended, by deleting the earlier reference to this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?
- The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.
- Amended. I've kept it so that the first round uses first name and surname, even though some players are mentioned earlier to avoid a mix of full names and surnames being used for players in the same section of the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
- "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"
- Amended - I didn't include the "and" because there's one soon after, so this could probably be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "wasn't" avoid contractions.
- Amended - also changed to "and was not" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "best-of-25 held" +frames.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.
- Hyphens removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?
- Discussed below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Crop the Foulds image to get rid of the clown...!
- You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've had a go at this. Pinging Nikkimaria who had kindly reviewed images earlier, as I've hopefully provided appropriate attribution but am not entirely sure. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Have just linked the original uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "in frame 7; allowing" no need for the semi-colon.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Link maximum break.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.
- cuegloss link added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
- Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.
- I'm not sure about the statement "from 1947 to 1951, five years in a row" currently in the article, as Fred Davis and John Pulman met in the 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship and 1956 World Professional Match-play Championship finals, now seen as world championships although they weren't called that at the time. Perhaps we should have a note to explain the choice of 1951 or 1956, Lee Vilenski? Either way, it was at the Tower Circus in Blackpool, which is easy to get a citation for. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amended to show 1955 and 1956, as these are regarded as world championships. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "This was the" +also.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "last red ball when" you link red ball here?
- Linked in correct place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?
- Even top players sometimes miss the object ball with the cue ball..so there is a difference, although perhaps "missed a red" is still better as a commonly-understood term? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I get it. I'd never thought of it that way, maybe just "failed to pot a red"? It's just a mouthful right now to equate to "missed a red" (albeit now I understand the possible ambiguity here now!) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- You link yellow ball but not green or pink...
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.
- Agreed. Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
- "winners.[17][16][78]" order.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- "first frameof the" space.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?
- 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would just add "beating the previous record of 135 by Spencer" or words to that effect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've had a go, but I'm not delighted with my wording. Maybe make this a footnote rather than body text? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 71, en-dash.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?
- Only because it's in the {{National Heritage List for England}} template. I have added the param that removes this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 30 is BBC Sport.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- As is ref 40.
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Consistent ISBN formats.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose and Lee Vilenski: Have all of TRM's points been addressed?
- I think so. TRM did say he was unlikely to be onwiki for the rest of the day, happy to address anything not satisfactory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thorough and constructive review, The Rambling Man and apologies it has taken so long to reply to all of the points. Let us know what else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think so. TRM did say he was unlikely to be onwiki for the rest of the day, happy to address anything not satisfactory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Namco
- Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.
This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.
The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Striking per my assumption of the nomination. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)- Support - The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. From the merger sections:
- The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.
Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [48] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Done
- Don't use fixed px size
- Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
- Images are missing alt text
- Added
- Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
- Sourced
- File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
- Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
- File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
- File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
- Added tag and tried expanding
- Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
- The Sonic design hasn't changed significantly over time, and has always been of a level of originality sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Neither is the case here. If you believe the non-free version is better in this context than the free one, then explain why in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
- Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added tag and tried expanding
- File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
- Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.
Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria: Responded to comments. Namcokid47 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Red Phoenix talk
Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.
Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:
- Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
- For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
- In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
- Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
- All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
- Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.
I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- I knew you'd show up eventually. I'm in no rush, so please take as much time as you need. In the meantime, I'll get cracking on those points regarding citations. Namcokid47 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will start commenting on each of these as I complete them. Still getting up to speed on the article, so please be patient. Indrian (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's give this a start at a more detailed look. Expect this to take a while, as well as several passes as changes are made. To ensure that when I refer to a reference by its number it's the same for you as it is for me, I'll note this first pass is for revision id 1017821592:
- With 1 and 2, just be mindful of consistency with access dates and publishing locations, respectively. They're okay if every source of the same type has them, but not if we have a location for this book but not that one, and so on.
- I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
- I'll confirm that I'm good with this aspect, that if a location is not provided in the actual book that it can be missing and doesn't require all of them to be struck. That is still consistency as far as the criterion is concerned. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
- Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
- I only have a partial copy of this book, so this may take me a little bit to track down. I can tell you that several of the citations do all come from that page, but not all of them do.
- I'll just point out that 3 is a perfect use of publisher when a website is an official site of a company or something. In this case, you don't need the website name if you use the publisher and it's the company's official website. Thumbs up!
- 4: I'm not sure I'd go with cite news for this one if Game Machine is a magazine and is the name of said magazine, which it appears to be. Game Machine wouldn't be the agency, it would be the publication's name, and thus should be italicized. I'd personally go with the cite magazine template, but you could also do cite journal if you prefer. Just make sure all magazines use one or the other, as they do format citations slightly different.
- This was a problem with several magazines, not just Game Machine. I believe I have switched all of them over to the cite magazine format.
- 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
- Likewise changed. Its a trade publication, which basically makes it a magazine for our purposes here.
- 6: Page numbers are the biggest deal here; see my note above. I don't think a link to Google Books is necessary as the citation is the book itself. I highly doubt the OCLC is necessary unless you're going to provide OCLCs for every book source, and another decision will need to be made on whether or not to hyphenate ISBNs, as 6 is hyphenated but 7 is not.
- Addendum: When I specified a link to Google Books is not necessary, it's because the link only provides more info about the book. It's not to a preview of the text copy. Red Phoenix talk 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- 7: See 6 above.
- 8 and 9: Again if these are actually books, page numbers will be needed. 9 would also need an ISBN.
That's all I have time for at the moment, but we'll continue later. Red Phoenix talk 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep going, shall we? Numbers as of revision 1019357606:
- Indrian, for the moment I won't comment on inclusion/exclusion of publishers since you're taking over the review, and for all I know you may come to a different conclusion than Namcokid47 on whether or not to include publishers in which kind of sources. The important thing is to be consistent on when we do include and when we do not, to meet criterion 2c. 10, for instance, struck me as odd having a person listed as the publisher, given it's the chairperson of The New York Times Company.
- I have eliminated the publisher field from all web cites. For cites where there was only a publisher field and no website field, I converted the publisher field to a website field. There are 123 web sources in the article, so if you notice one I missed, let me know.
- 13, in line with the necessity for page numbers mentioned above, needs page numbers and in this case the two citations are quite a distance apart in the book. I would split these, as suggested. Since I have this book, I can give you these numbers: the note about Torpedo Launcher/Periscope is on pages 7 and 8; the Namco offer to buy Sega is on pages 253 and 254.
- 14: Link Play Meter since we have an article. It's going to be Volume 3, issue 1, and the actual title of the article is "Projection Racing: Conversation with Masaya Nakamura, Inventor of F-1", and it's on page 12.
- Play Meter linked, proper title and page number added, and volume and issue number added to the citation. Note that while the article starts on Page 12, the information in question appears on page 13.
- 17: Though the source is good and can be kept, the link to Shmuplations will have to be removed. It's an amazing site, I agree, but there's no evidence permission was granted to translate and re-publish the material, so we have to err on the side that linking to the text is linking to a copyright violation. On the plus side: Here's the original source, at least as on the Wayback Machine. It looks like this starts on page 32 in the book.
- Shmuplations removed and cite taken back to the original source. Per my comments below, I have included Shmuplations site owner Alex Highsmith in the cite as the translator, but without making mention of the website or linking to the article.
- 19: RePlay is the name of the magazine, so should be italicized, with the capital P in the middle. Page numbers (28-30) should also be added.
- Name capitalization corrected, volume, issue, and page numbers added. Note that the proper pagination is Atari 28-Atari 30, as this was a special section of the magazine numbered as such. There were also plain old pages 28-30 in the issue.
- 21 and 23: Need consistency on "Cash Box" or "Cashbox" - they're used differently between the two. Personally I usually go with Cashbox, but it's your call.
- These should now be consistent. You are correct that there is inconsistency on whether its "Cash Box" or "Cashbox," which I think is because the spacing between the words is very small on the cover. The space is present, however, and a space can be more clearly seen between the words in the text of the publication. It also seems to appear with a space in most library catalogs, including the LoC, so I went with that.
- Similarly to publishers, ISSNs also need to be all or nothing for consistency in magazine sources - either identifiers are included, or they are not. It's probably easier not to include any, but you're welcome to try and hunt them all down. I just don't see them as necessary in this case.
- I concur that ISSNs are not worth the trouble. They should all be gone now.
- 22 and 24: Likewise, books need to either have publishing locations, or not at all. Book publishers are important, but the locations are not as important as consistently having them or not.
- As above, all book publishers should now have location information except for the two books for which this info does not exist.
- 26: Not sure if a citation template is being used here or not, but JoyStik is the name of the magazine and should be italicized. If there's not a cite template being used here, I certainly recommend one to make life easier.
- For some reason, this was done with the cite book template with JoyStik as the publisher. Changed to cite magazine and added the volume and issue number as well as the actual publisher.
- 30: Link Gamasutra as the website.
- Done
- 33: Call me crazy, but I don't see the direct correlation between a repair manual for a Pac-Man arcade cabinet published in December 1980 establishing that Pac-Man was a North American release of the Japanese "Puck Man" game in December 1980. Surely there's a better source for this?
- 34: I'd like to see such an impactful statement sourced better. This is a press release, so it implies a bit of bias for claims such as "a fixture in popular culture", and to a lesser extent, "multi-million selling media franchise". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not factual, only that such a claim would be better sourced to a true third party source.
- 35 and 36: IGN is a website, and as such, should be italicized.
- This fixed itself when I converted all IGN mentions from "publisher" to "website."
- 37: I see this is the cite journal template formatting. As mentioned above, all magazines could be either cite magazine or cite journal, but they need to be consistent and use one or the other.
- Fixed along with (hopefully) all the others.
- 38: IGN is a website, but 1Up.com during this time was owned by IGN Entertainment, IGN's company. If you choose to keep publishers, which I recommend against, make sure it's "IGN Entertainment" to avoid confusion with the website.
- Oh I definitely got rid of that pesky publisher field. ;)
- 41: Note that this book is in Japanese. I'd also not use all caps for the title. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the publisher (recognizing this is a Japanese publisher), and would be curious to verify this claim.
- Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
- As long as the community is okay with this, I am. I've not found anything in the MOS that says otherwise on all-capitalization for this particular instance, only in other uses in the encyclopedia, so I'm good unless someone else objects.
- Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
I'm liking the progress so far. I'll try to continue on this weekend - I know my schedule is not the greatest anymore, and for good IRL reason, but that's why I'm glad we're starting this now. I will do my best to be timely. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep going. As of revision 1020893203:
- Still more instances of websites with and without publishers inconsistently as we go. Again, I won't note them all, just nudge that a decision still needs to be made there.
- Hopefully all those pesky publishers have been purged.
- 21: Cash Box, as a publication, should be italicized. I'm presuming it's in a "publisher" field and not "magazine", which is why the error?
- This was using the cite book template for some reason. Changed to cite magazine.
- 47: Same as 17 above, I'm concerned about linking to Shmuplations, which likely does not have permission to reprint a translation. Furthermore, it's not the true source of this information. It appears the original source for this particular quote is a 2003 interview from the "GSLA", if you have any idea what that is. Perhaps it could be converted to a cite interview to make this work?
- I do not believe this is a correct interpretation in this instance. Shmuplations is not reprinting material found elsewhere; it is providing English-language translations of other material. The original source is not the source, because we are not citing to the Japanese text, we are citing to the English translation, which is a derivative work of the original text. While Alex Highsmith may not have permission to translate the original text, the translation is his original work. While you are correct that his translation of this material without the authorization of the original copyright holder is a violation of US copyright law, its up to those rights holders to issue any DMCA takedowns, which they have not done. As such, there is no reason to pretend the Shmuplations translations do not exist. Indrian (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this instance on the grounds that this does not meet WP:FACR 1f. WP:COPYLINK, part of the Copyright policy, is pretty specific on this and in a Featured Article it's even more noticeable than what I'm presuming is a high number of said violations across Wikipedia. The translation isn't really "his" original work, as derivative works such as translations are still copyright of the publisher in the original language, not the translator. Just because no DMCA takedown has been issued at this time doesn't mean it's okay to link to a copyright violation. I'm not saying we have to pretend Shmuplations doesn't exist, but that it should be a tool to explore other reliable sources and not a source itself. However, if you still disagree with me, I'm more than happy to ask for a second opinion from an experienced source reviewer, such as FAC coordinator Ealdgyth or FAR coordinator Nikkimaria. Red Phoenix talk 01:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the confusion here. I am absolutely fine with removing the link to Shmuplations, which as you correctly note is required by our copyright policies. I thought you were also requesting I cite to the original Japanese source instead, which I do not believe is required nor helpful. A translation is a derivative work, which is still an original creative expression, albeit one that is still beholden to the original copyrighted work and to which the original copyright holder automatically acquires the rights to. The act of translation is its own creative process that does not involve just a literal word-for-word transliteration. As the shmuplations translation is the version being used, this is the version that needs to be cited to, just without the link. It's not our job to police copyright, only to make sure Wikipedia is not a contributory infringer. Linking would make us one, citing to the information does not. Sorry for the confusion. Indrian (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Red Phoenix Okay, so here is what I have done. There were three sources that cited Shmuplations: 17, 47, and 88. For 17, I cited to the original source, made no mention of or link to Shmuplations, and listed Alex Highsmith (the Shmuplations guy) as the translator of the source. Source 47 cannot be treated the same, however, because GSLA is not the original source, but is itself actually a copyright infringer. It is a website that posts Japanese video game developer interviews, but it does so without attributing where the interviews came from. Therefore, it is impossible for me to trace back to the original source. This source is used for only a very minor point about the influence of a single game, however, so I have just removed the claim and the source. Doing so does not harm the comprehensiveness of the article in any way. Source 88, I have not touched yet, but I believe I have a solid English-language source that can be used to substantiate the same claim, so I plan on replacing it when I get there. Once that is done, all the Shmuplations defects should be cleared up. Indrian (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this instance on the grounds that this does not meet WP:FACR 1f. WP:COPYLINK, part of the Copyright policy, is pretty specific on this and in a Featured Article it's even more noticeable than what I'm presuming is a high number of said violations across Wikipedia. The translation isn't really "his" original work, as derivative works such as translations are still copyright of the publisher in the original language, not the translator. Just because no DMCA takedown has been issued at this time doesn't mean it's okay to link to a copyright violation. I'm not saying we have to pretend Shmuplations doesn't exist, but that it should be a tool to explore other reliable sources and not a source itself. However, if you still disagree with me, I'm more than happy to ask for a second opinion from an experienced source reviewer, such as FAC coordinator Ealdgyth or FAR coordinator Nikkimaria. Red Phoenix talk 01:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe this is a correct interpretation in this instance. Shmuplations is not reprinting material found elsewhere; it is providing English-language translations of other material. The original source is not the source, because we are not citing to the Japanese text, we are citing to the English translation, which is a derivative work of the original text. While Alex Highsmith may not have permission to translate the original text, the translation is his original work. While you are correct that his translation of this material without the authorization of the original copyright holder is a violation of US copyright law, its up to those rights holders to issue any DMCA takedowns, which they have not done. As such, there is no reason to pretend the Shmuplations translations do not exist. Indrian (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, the point seems to be moot with regard to the Toyama interview at least: up until November, the source was apparently cited for the claim that Shigeki Toyama led the robotics division, but that claim no longer appears in the article, and I can't find any other information in the relevant Wikipedia sentence that is verified in the Shmuplations page, let alone the Japanese original. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I’ll just note that as long as “source 88” (now 87 as of the most recent revision) is cleared up, I approve of this solution. I see no harm in noting who translated the material for this interpretation of the source. Nice catch on what was 47; that just sounds like a mess of copyright entanglement. Red Phoenixtalk 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- 50: The author for this particular section is Stuart Campbell.
- 54: (No action needed yet. I am unclear on formatting of YouTube references, but believe this is incorrect. I need to research to verify this and what is the correct format, and will come back to this one later).
- 57: (No action needed here at all. I want to note, for any reviewers who may come to challenge this one on the basis this is a self-published book, that this was written and published by established video game journalist John Szczepaniak, who I know has previously written for Retro Gamer, and therefore I have no doubts about its suitability as a reliable source).
*60: Forgive me for asking, but what makes Kill Screen a reliable source? I did see the author claims to be an established video game historian, but it's not someone I'm familiar with.
- I struck this one as I’ve found out that Kill Screen is listed at VG/S, and I merely overlooked it. Red Phoenix talk 16:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- 61: If we are keeping magazine publishing locations, just "United Kingdom" seems a little vague. Is that what the magazine says?
- 62: Granted I don't know a lick of Japanese, but I'm struggling to find the author name in the source.
- I can see where those words appear, but I don't see how they could be seen as referring to an author. I took this out.
- 63: In contrast to the magazines, is this actually a journal? It uses cite journal, but I'm not sure what kind of source this is. Likewise, if 63 is a journal, surely it would have a doi and other identifiers as well like 64 does?
- Good catch. No, this is definitely a magazine. Switched it over to the cite magazine format.
- Still need to decide how to consistently hyphenate ISBNs.
- Should also make sure we're using the language parameter consistently with all foreign language sources.
Took a break here. Continuing:
- 79: Who is this interview with? It's not clear from the citation. Perhaps consider adding the name/s of the interviewee/s to the title of the citation, or use the cite interview template.
- It's a roundtable interview with a lot of people. The title Namcokid chose does make it sound like its just talking to one person. I put in the actual Japanese name for this entire project and also provided an English translation.
- 91: Just some future thinking here as we tackle the page number issue that 57 and 91 are the same source, and as such how we choose to handle 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be handled consistently here as well. As it stands, we have spelled out the full citation in 91 with the separate page numbers.
- 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, etc.: As noted above, consistency with the language parameter. Game Machine cites should note they are in Japanese. I've stopped listing them after 108, just check them all.
- All the Game Machine cites should have the language parameter now.
- 97 and 98: So far, we have utilized publishers with magazine cites. These two don't have them, however.
- Fixed
- 111, 142, 152, 156, etc.: IGN should be a website, not a publisher. Numerous occasions as you go, so I won't list them all.
- Should all be fixed
- 112: Link Digital Spy as the website.
- Done
- 113, 148: Link Siliconera as the website. Also in 148, Siliconera should be italicized.
- Done
- 121, 124: Link Edge (magazine)
- Fixed. I even added a link to a GamePro cite appearing between them at no additional cost to you.
- 141: Why is Famitsu the website and IGN the publisher? These two don't add up.
- No idea what happened here since I am not the original editor on all this, but looking at the source, its clearly an IGN article. Fixed.
- 144, 151, 161: Remove Namco.co.jp as the website. Namco as the publisher alone suffices here.
- Fixed
- 153: Wait a second, so SoftBank News isn't published by SoftBank Group? There are other occurrences above as well where there is no publisher noted for this website, but again, however you choose to deal with this is up to you as long as it's done consistently.
- Publishers are gone, so this is now moot.
- 166: No website listed.
- 186: Same as 38 above
- Good thing we dropped those pesky publishers, eh? ;)
- 192: Again, drop the website if it's just a URL. Publisher alone would suffice.
- I think in this case, we are looking at an article on the Famitsu website, so I believe keeping this webstie would be the right call.
- 205 and 206: GamesRadar or, as Wikipedia's article calls it, GamesRadar+?
- This content predates the rename from GamesRadar to GamesRadar+. However, since the content is still live under the new name, I think its appropriate to just add the "+."
- 209 and 210: A bit odd here - Next Generation is the magazine, and should be in front of Imagine Media and italicized. Presuming this might be another bad use of the cite news template? Same with 210 and The Wall Street Journal.
- The Next Generation article was indeed using the cite news template. Changed to cite magazine. The Wall Street Journal cite was using the right template, but the newspaper was listed as the agency instead of the work, so that is fixed too.
That concludes a first pass of the sources. There is a lot to be done here, I know, but no one ever said consistent citations were the fun part. I can try and jump in to give you a hand if time allows, but it's been tough lately for me to find available time. After you have made some decisions and set to fixing, I'll do a "final pass" to catch stragglers and any loose ends. I'll also check for any additional sourcing inconsistencies and conduct a few spot-checks, as this would have been Namcokid47's first FAC and those are usually mandatory for an editor's first. Red Phoenix talk 03:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thorough review! I will keep chipping away at these this week. I have done my share of academic publishing, so I am no stranger to the importance of proper source formatting. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue to plunge deeper into this FAC that is not of my own making. I remain confident I can carry it over the finish line! Indrian (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Nominator discussion
I've subheaded this discussion aside so that it does not get convoluted with my comments. I hope that's all right. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ WP:FAC coordinators: : I'm really concerned about irl stuff right now, so I've chosen to retire likely for good. I'd like to have this FAC closed since I won't be here to address any comments or questions. I hope you can understand. Namcokid47 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian ( talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just throwing out my 2 cents that I support Indrian's offer. I can vouch for his knowledgeability based on past work with him, and I don't see a conflict of interest in him being willing to take over the work. Red Phoenixtalk 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian ( talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: So can we move forward on this basis? I don’t know what needs to happen procedurally. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Indrian, you can indeed. Prior to becoming a coordinator I once did this myself - including "responding" to my own review, which was a little strange. Shout if you encounter problems. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that would be great, I would just add yourself as a co-nom at the top (co-nom so Namcokid still gets credit for their work starting it off) and, as you say, strike your support because you're now taking over the nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support from Panini!
Thank you, Idrian, for picking this one up. Namcokid put a lot of work into this and I would have been dissapointed to see it go to waste. Wanted to pop in and say Support on prose, however. It's a good read! I might come in with further comments in the future, but this is where I stand. Panini!🥪 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment, not super-important I'm a little concerned about
The name Namco, an abbreviation of Nakamura Manufacturing Company
(and the related matter of the English name of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company"), which looks suspicious on its face (why would they take the first two letters of the first and third words but not the second, and in Japanese ナ ム コ looks more like an abbreviation of なか むら コンパニー) and a quick Googling brought up this tweet from Bandai-Namco's official Japanese Twitter account that directly contradicts it and would seem to make more sense to begin with. The claim appeared in the article before the accompanying Kotaku source was produced,[49][50] which makes me suspicious of WP:CITOGENESIS (I have in the past seen Kotaku articles both obviously get their information from Wikipedia and present historical and Japanological research that is some below the standards of Wikipedia). I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", given that even now many Japanese companies seem to have no idea what their official English name is supposed to be, but if we are going to prioritize one over the other I kinda feel like it should be the one that the company itself says is the origin of the name our article uses as its title. Granted, sources, especially English-language ones, are difficult to find to support the existence of an English translation of an old name for a defunct company, especially because of the aforementioned CITOGENESIS, but it seems very likely that offline sources about this company from the pre-wiki days can be found if the above tweet is insufficient. (Unfortunately, when I tried doing an image search to see if old Pac-Man machines had English copyright information printed somewhere, the closest I got was to find out that apparently the company's US patent for its game machine was granted to "Kabushiki Kaisha Nakamura Seisakusho".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for brining this up. Right now, there is no good evidence that Namco ever went by the name Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing. I would not consider this tweet to be a high-quality source on the matter, for as you say, Japanese companies are often confused by their own Western names and the current Bandai Namco is a bit removed from the original Namco just because of the merger. If we look back over older sources, Namco's own corporate history timeline on its English-language website pre-merger stated the company was founded as the Nakamura Manufacturing Company and never mentions "amusement" as being in the name. Likewise, a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Most English-language sources from the 1960s and 1970s just use the official company name of the time, "Nakamura Seisakusho Co., Ltd. While "Seisakusho" does not literally translate to "manufacturing," that is usually how the word is translated into English in this context, and it certainly has nothing to do with the word "amusement." Nor to my understanding could the Japanese characters that spell out the company name, 中村製作所, ever be translated to include the word "amusement." In summary, there is zero evidence in contemporaneous sources that the company ever referred to itself in English as anything but "Nakamura Manufacturing" or "Nakamura Seisakusho," and the Japanese name does not contain any characters that would refer to the word "amusement" or any concept similar to amusement. I think a low-level PR employee just whiffed on this one. Indrian (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Western name" and "English name" are very different: English is a de facto official language in Japan, with it being the original of the Japanese constitution, it being universally studied in the education system, and it being increasingly used by businesses for a growing proportion of their internal communications, but not a lot of people actually speaking or understanding it, which results in various inconsistent "Japanese English" names used by the same company within Japan, oftentimes all equally official unless the company has an official, publicly available, English version of their articles of incorporation; "Western name" implies a name used by western media, which in this case is a little tricky since most of the earlier stuff is unlikely to be available on the Internet.
a 1985 article in English by the Japanaese trade publication Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry written by a Japanese author and based largely on an interview with company founder Masaya Nakamura, refers to the original company name as Nakamura Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
This is really interesting, but it would be a good idea in the future to provide a link or a specific article title: I Googled the title of the publication and the name "Masaya Nakamura" and got no exact matches before realizing that the title had an ampersand and found this. This does indeed prove that the English name "Nakamura Manufacturing" (which is indeed a literal translation of 中村製作所, and therefore the one most likely to be employed by an author writing after the fact based on an interview that was likely conducted in Japanese) was attested before Wikipedia, but as I said confusion within Japanese companies, let alone among third parties, already made this a near-certainty, and the article (which, to be fair, I skimmed to find the use of the name "Nakamura Manufacturing") doesn't seem to indicate a connection between the precise wording "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and the then-current name of "Namco" (halfway through the second paragraph on the second page, the author just starts referring to the company as Namco without comment), so the source can't be used for the claim that the name "Namco" is an abbreviation of anything in particular. Meanwhile, while "製作所" does not mean "amusement manufacturing", that is a pretty intuitive translation for a company that was primarily active in the amusement park industry rather than, say, steel manufacturing, and while it's possible that the employee who wrote the tweet was duped by a hoax on Japanese Wikipedia's article on Masaya Nakamura, given that the tweet doesn't mention him it seems more likely that if he/she was looking at a Wikipedia article it would have been this one, knew or heard from someone else within the company that this was incorrect, and tweeted the correct information accordingly. - It might be worth noting that I've just now noticed that Japanese Wikipedia (unusually for that site...) cites sources for both of these statements, with the claim about Namco being an abbreviation of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" being attributed to
「超発想集団・ナムコ」PHP研究所、p.119、1984年、ISBN 4-569-21327-8
while the claim that it is an abbreviation of "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" is attributed to「新明解ナム語辞典」日本ソフトバンク、1987年、ISBN 978-4-930795-86-1
I'm loath to trust Japanese Wikipedia over a GA-class article on our own site under the best of circumstances, but it does strike me as odd that we cite the former claim to a Kotaku article and the latter source. I'll see if I can get to a library and check both of these (mid-1980s) sources out over next weekend, but given that both of them are old and obscure enough that neither is available in any form on Amazon, it seems unlikely that the Osaka public libraries will have them on-hand... - Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 02:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Either way, unless someone can confirm the contents of 新明解ナム語辞典, I think we should assume that the Japanese-speakers on Japanese Wikipedia interpreted it correctly and either (a) change the content to read
The name Namco, an abbreviation of either Nakamura Manufacturing Company or Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company, was introduced in 1971 as a brand for several of its machines.[s?]>
or (b) remove the 新明解ナム語辞典 citation. At present I'm leaning (b) since adding content based on an assumption that another Wikipedia article has accurately represented its cited source's contents is borderline WP:CIRCULAR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 02:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)- Once again, I really appreciate you looking into this, as we certainly want the history to be accurate. Its interesting that the 1984 book is by the same author who wrote the 1985 article. The 1987 books seems from what I can tell to be something of a fan publication more focused on game center culture, though the author did apparently have some official contact with Namco and had the original version of this dictionary published in Namco's own magazine, which lends it an aura of credibility. It also has its own Japanese Wikipedia page for some reason. As you say though, I would want to see the actual text to confirm it actually makes this specific claim as opposed to being another amorphous translation issue. A couple more Western sources that refer to Nakamura Manufacturing Company include this article in Cash Box from 1967 and this deposition of Hideyuki Nakajima, who is a Japanese native who seems to have an okay, but not flawless, grasp of English at this time. Neither of these sources speak to what the acronym means, but just in terms of seeing if anyone ever referred to the company as Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing, I am still not seeing it. That 1987 would sure be great to get a peak at though. Just because I am skeptical does not mean I am not keeping an open mind. I do want to be accurate. Indrian ( talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- As a further point of comparison, Hijiri 88, how would you translate this passage: 中村製作所(ナカムラセイサクショ)は続く F-1( 76.10 ) での成功を受けて社名を変更するが、ここで初めてナム コの略称が使われた。これは海外に対して『ナカムラ・ 7ニュファクチャリング・カンパニー』と名乗る事もあった ので、その英話名称を縮めてナムコとしたもの。これは 同社の企業ブランド戦略のl慌矢となった? This is from a book length oral history of Kazunori Sawano that also goes into general Namco history. I take it to be saying that the company name was changed to Namco because the Western name was Nakamura Manufacturing Company, but I do not speak Japanese and would appreciate your input. Indrian ( talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on the general reliability of 新明解ナム語辞典, but if you don't mind, could we remove it just to be safe? I do have opinions on Kotaku, but I suspect I'm in the minority of Wikipedia editors, and the article seems to have passed GA review with the Kotaku citation intact, and the Kotaku source seems to support all the content of the sentence by itself, while 新明解ナム語辞典 probably contradicts it.
- Well, there seems to be a mojibake or some such problem on the first letter of マニュファクチャリング, but yes, that is in line with the "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources, but the full quote reads
Nakamura Seisakusho, with the ongoing success of F-1 (October 1976) changed its company name, and this was the first time the abbreviation Namco was used [emphasis added]. This was a shortening of the English name that the company sometimes used overseas, namely "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". [Then something about this becoming the l慌矢(?) of the company's corporate brand strategy.]
, which, while supporting the root of the abbreviation currently cited in our article, but seems to contradict the date. It's theoretically possible to ignore the explicit wording used in the quote (ここで初めて○○が使われた) and interpret it as meaning that the official name change happened in 1976 by using an abbreviation that had been introduced in 1971, but that's not what the source says -- I was originally going to say it might be an idea to replace 新明解ナム語辞典 with this source (title?), but if it contradicts the other information in the sentence that can't be used. - Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 02:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, thank you for engaging in this incredibly helpful dialogue. I am good with removing the 1987 Japanese book. As to the rest, I would like to loop in Red Phoenix since they are doing the source review. Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? Any one who has interacted with me for any period of time on Wikipedia knows I am the last person to ever just assume a generally reliable source is correct in a particular instance. For what’s it’s worth, though, I think the totality of the evidence shows Kotaku got it right this time, and as a subject-matter expert I can also say with authority that this name origin story predates Wikipedia, so I don’t see a citogenesis problem here. If you are uncomfortable with the source after this discourse though, Red, I can look for alternatives. Indrian ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. (Sorry if I seem a bit gruff/sarcastic in these interactions; it's not intentional, but I've been rushing these responses to get back to the other two discussions on en.wiki and one discussion on ja.wiki that I found myself dragged into without honestly being that interested in any of them and being busy IRL.)
Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company?
(I'm assuming that only your final sentence is directed at Red Phoenix specifically and not me or "the room".) As I said above, no, but I'm willing to agree to disagree if the consensus among other editors is that Kotaku is reliable for this kind of information.I don’t see a citogenesis problem here
My view is that citogenesis is always a problem with pop culture topics (like video games) that touch on slightly less pop-culture-y topics (like the pre-1980 corporate history of any Japanese company) and we need to be super-skeptical of sources like Kotaku in such circumstances. Even in cases like this, where I believe you that the "NAkamura Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story predates Wikipedia, it may well be the case that prior to Wikipedia there was an equally viable "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing COmpany → Namco" story that has since been suppressed as a result of English-language pop culture sources copying Wikipedia, which may not technically be citogenesis (which implies a completely made up statement that subsequently spread to other sources) but it's pretty close. Personally, I would prefer if the source you quoted above replaced the Kotaku one, but as long as I know that such a source exists (as I now do) and others are happy with the Kotaku citation, it's not something I see as worth fighting over. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. (Sorry if I seem a bit gruff/sarcastic in these interactions; it's not intentional, but I've been rushing these responses to get back to the other two discussions on en.wiki and one discussion on ja.wiki that I found myself dragged into without honestly being that interested in any of them and being busy IRL.)
- Once again, thank you for engaging in this incredibly helpful dialogue. I am good with removing the 1987 Japanese book. As to the rest, I would like to loop in Red Phoenix since they are doing the source review. Are you okay with Kotaku being the source for Namco being a contraction of Nakamura Manufacturing Company? Any one who has interacted with me for any period of time on Wikipedia knows I am the last person to ever just assume a generally reliable source is correct in a particular instance. For what’s it’s worth, though, I think the totality of the evidence shows Kotaku got it right this time, and as a subject-matter expert I can also say with authority that this name origin story predates Wikipedia, so I don’t see a citogenesis problem here. If you are uncomfortable with the source after this discourse though, Red, I can look for alternatives. Indrian ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- As a further point of comparison, Hijiri 88, how would you translate this passage: 中村製作所(ナカムラセイサクショ)は続く F-1( 76.10 ) での成功を受けて社名を変更するが、ここで初めてナム コの略称が使われた。これは海外に対して『ナカムラ・ 7ニュファクチャリング・カンパニー』と名乗る事もあった ので、その英話名称を縮めてナムコとしたもの。これは 同社の企業ブランド戦略のl慌矢となった? This is from a book length oral history of Kazunori Sawano that also goes into general Namco history. I take it to be saying that the company name was changed to Namco because the Western name was Nakamura Manufacturing Company, but I do not speak Japanese and would appreciate your input. Indrian ( talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, I really appreciate you looking into this, as we certainly want the history to be accurate. Its interesting that the 1984 book is by the same author who wrote the 1985 article. The 1987 books seems from what I can tell to be something of a fan publication more focused on game center culture, though the author did apparently have some official contact with Namco and had the original version of this dictionary published in Namco's own magazine, which lends it an aura of credibility. It also has its own Japanese Wikipedia page for some reason. As you say though, I would want to see the actual text to confirm it actually makes this specific claim as opposed to being another amorphous translation issue. A couple more Western sources that refer to Nakamura Manufacturing Company include this article in Cash Box from 1967 and this deposition of Hideyuki Nakajima, who is a Japanese native who seems to have an okay, but not flawless, grasp of English at this time. Neither of these sources speak to what the acronym means, but just in terms of seeing if anyone ever referred to the company as Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing, I am still not seeing it. That 1987 would sure be great to get a peak at though. Just because I am skeptical does not mean I am not keeping an open mind. I do want to be accurate. Indrian ( talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Western name" and "English name" are very different: English is a de facto official language in Japan, with it being the original of the Japanese constitution, it being universally studied in the education system, and it being increasingly used by businesses for a growing proportion of their internal communications, but not a lot of people actually speaking or understanding it, which results in various inconsistent "Japanese English" names used by the same company within Japan, oftentimes all equally official unless the company has an official, publicly available, English version of their articles of incorporation; "Western name" implies a name used by western media, which in this case is a little tricky since most of the earlier stuff is unlikely to be available on the Internet.
Okay, so I'm very sorry it took me a while to make it here, but that's just the way IRL has been treating me lately. Anyway, Indrian, here's what I would tell you: normally, I'd say yes. According to WP:VG/S, Kotaku is considered a reliable source for all news articles after 2010, though this isn't exactly "news". They do tend to do well with retrospectives, however, and I've used them with some caution before. That being said, let me poke another hole in this one. In doing some searching on "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", I didn't find that, but I did find several occurrences of "Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company". And here it is again in the Wall Street Journal, which is listed at WP:RSP, and at Gamasutra. There are actually many more I'm finding, and they're all tied to obituaries of Nakamura. At least one contradicts Kotaku by saying the initialism happened after a 1977 rename, whereas Kotaku claims 1971. As it stands, I'm trying to find a more period-based source that might help us out, but I think there's enough here to poke a hole in this particular claim to this particular source given that we have disagreement in other, similar sources also considered reliable. Red Phoenix talk 03:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should add here (since I don't think it came across well above) that I'm confident that all these variations (Nakamura Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company, Nakamura Amusement Machine Manufacturing Company, and possibly others) "exist" and were at one time or another officially recognized by the company themselves. The problems as I see them are (i) which of these can specifically be called the origin of the abbreviation "Namco" and (ii) when the abbreviation was coined. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 04:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: A look through the sources I reviewed suggests the same. The when and what specifically also seems to be in dispute in modern sources - ergo, my desire to try and find a period-based source, maybe in an old issue of Cashbox or so. Red Phoenixtalk 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right, that's been one of my points. Other than possibly one 1987 book for which we cannot currently verify the contents, no older source I am aware of in English or Japanese ever refers to a "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company." English language sources from the 1960s through the 1980s use either the original official name, Nakamura Seisakusho, or the translation of said name, Nakamura Manufacturing. While this is not proof in the sense that these sources don't say what Namco stands for, it would be odd for it to be shorthand for a name the company never used in another capacity. Indrian ( talk) 16:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here’s an interesting one, supposedly from an old issue of Cashbox circa 1976, though I’d have to find the exact issue. It does call the company “Nakamura Seisakusho”, but says “call us by our familiar initials NAMCO”. Maybe it’s not short for anything in English at all? Red Phoenixtalk 16:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't believe it didn't occur to me to check until now, but Googling "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" ("Nakamura ... Company", despite some statements above to the contrary, being a fairly reasonable translation of "Nakamura Seisakusho" by itself, with "Amusement Machine" being a description of their key product) in quotes brings up a few Japanese pages of seemingly varying levels of trustworthiness, which mostly seem to go back to this. This, like "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" seems, at least to me, like a more likely source of the abbreviation "NAMCo" than "Nakamura Manufacturing Company", and I'm not exactly seeing the flood of pre-web English-language sources that all uniformly refer to the company as either "Nakamura Seisakusho" or "Nakamura Manufacturing (Company?)" alluded to above -- seemingly one unattributed quotation and one article in the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry that use the latter and at least one patent application that uses the former. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is it so important that we have the exact abbreviation to the word? We could either specify that sources differ on precisely what it's short for, or just mention that Namco came about as an abbreviation of the company's name and not specify exactly how. Perhaps that would not be so precise, but it would be accurate and still based on an appropriate review of reliable sources. Red Phoenixtalk 01:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm okay with either of those solutions. But in-line citations should be to sources that give different origins, because with only "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources (or one obscure Japanese print source from the 1980s and one "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" source that is both online and in English) someone might inadvertently restore some version the present text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, I will absolutely fix this so that the sourcing lines up well with the claims, and I am incredibly grateful that you brought this issue to my attention on the FAC page. I am not sure, how much of the nom you read through, but I am not the original nominator of the article nor the person that did the majority of the work on the article, so I have been coming to grips with some of the nuances at the same time as everyone else. (I did the GA review, but that does not require the same level of engagement with the sources as we demand from a full FAC source review). As to your specific factual concerns, I am still just not seeing them. It's wonderful that you appear to have tracked down the modern source for the claim of the Nakamura Amusment Machine Company name, because it provides some more clarity on why this claim is suspect. Simply put, I would not expect a PR rep at Bandai Namco, a successor in interest to the original Namco, to have any idea how Namco itself translated the word "Seisakusho" into English. They are quite far removed from the original name change, which was almost forty years before that source was written. I do perhaps take slight umbrage at the "flood of sources" comment. I provided you what I felt were some of the most pertinent examples, but I never had any intention of citing to every mention of Nakamura Manufacturing/Seisakusho in the English-language coin-op trades. I will give you two more, however. Here is an ad Namco itself placed in the English-language coin-op trades announcing the name change. As you can see, the official name of the company was Nakamura Seisakusho in English. As for how to translate that into English, here is Namco's own corporate history, pre-merger, rendered in English by Namco corporate itself on its own Japanese website. Again, it does not say what Namco stands for, but it does clearly show what Namco itself considered the English translation of the "Seisakusho" in its name to be at a time when its founder was still the chairman of the company. It stretches all credulity that Namco is derived from an English name (Nakamura Amusement Machine Company) for which there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world. Indrian ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those are interesting sources, but all they do is verify what I said up above (
I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as A, B, C, etc.
) without shedding any light on the origin of the abbreviation, and the latter actually just clouds the dating issue even further by showing that as of 2003 Namco's English website said that the "[u]se of [the] Namco brand name [began]" in 1972 (given the preponderance of other sources, I suspect this is either a typo or a factual error). I don't think we're going to solve the mystery with the resources we have at present, so why can't we just do what Red Phoenix suggested above and say either that different sources give different etymologies (and cite at least one source for each, without necessarily listing them in-line) or that the name "Namco" was originally a brand-name based on an abbreviation of the company's name (without actually stating what said company's name is)? I didn't think it would be an issue so I didn't mention it up above, but is the problem that the latter solution would lead readers to assume that the correct origin was "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" because said name is cited elsewhere in the article? I don't see that as an issue, and I seem to be the one who's most sceptical of that origin, so I don't see why anyone else would see it as important. Anyway:there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world
This is a little problematic, as it depends on what you consider to constitute "the English-speaking world" -- English has been a de facto official language of Japan since before Nakamura Seisakusho was founded, and while even today very few Japanese companies are careful to maintain uniformity in their English branding, it goes without saying that some form of English branding could have been in use even within Japan, let alone in the company's dealings with other parts of Asia where English is used as a lingua franca, even if such would not have appeared in publicly available materials in those countries at the time or now. Even if you reject Niconico News as a source and take "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" to be either a hoax or an error, there are still three options, all attributable to reliable third-party sources, one of which (Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company) is attributable to a recent first-party source but possibly contradicted by the fact that there are a larger number of old sources that refer to the company (but not the origin of the brand name) as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company". I would think it qualifies as OR to take a bunch of sources that all refer to the company as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and claim (in the article space) that this is the origin of the brand name "Namco", especially when multiple reliable sources explicitly say otherwise, and I really don't see why it's still an issue worth arguing over: we should just remove the potentially problematic part of the sentence and change the citations (or insert a WP:COMMENT) so no one misinterprets it in the future. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 05:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those are interesting sources, but all they do is verify what I said up above (
- To be clear, I will absolutely fix this so that the sourcing lines up well with the claims, and I am incredibly grateful that you brought this issue to my attention on the FAC page. I am not sure, how much of the nom you read through, but I am not the original nominator of the article nor the person that did the majority of the work on the article, so I have been coming to grips with some of the nuances at the same time as everyone else. (I did the GA review, but that does not require the same level of engagement with the sources as we demand from a full FAC source review). As to your specific factual concerns, I am still just not seeing them. It's wonderful that you appear to have tracked down the modern source for the claim of the Nakamura Amusment Machine Company name, because it provides some more clarity on why this claim is suspect. Simply put, I would not expect a PR rep at Bandai Namco, a successor in interest to the original Namco, to have any idea how Namco itself translated the word "Seisakusho" into English. They are quite far removed from the original name change, which was almost forty years before that source was written. I do perhaps take slight umbrage at the "flood of sources" comment. I provided you what I felt were some of the most pertinent examples, but I never had any intention of citing to every mention of Nakamura Manufacturing/Seisakusho in the English-language coin-op trades. I will give you two more, however. Here is an ad Namco itself placed in the English-language coin-op trades announcing the name change. As you can see, the official name of the company was Nakamura Seisakusho in English. As for how to translate that into English, here is Namco's own corporate history, pre-merger, rendered in English by Namco corporate itself on its own Japanese website. Again, it does not say what Namco stands for, but it does clearly show what Namco itself considered the English translation of the "Seisakusho" in its name to be at a time when its founder was still the chairman of the company. It stretches all credulity that Namco is derived from an English name (Nakamura Amusement Machine Company) for which there is as yet no evidence Namco itself actually used in its dealings in the English-speaking world. Indrian ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm okay with either of those solutions. But in-line citations should be to sources that give different origins, because with only "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" sources (or one obscure Japanese print source from the 1980s and one "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" source that is both online and in English) someone might inadvertently restore some version the present text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is it so important that we have the exact abbreviation to the word? We could either specify that sources differ on precisely what it's short for, or just mention that Namco came about as an abbreviation of the company's name and not specify exactly how. Perhaps that would not be so precise, but it would be accurate and still based on an appropriate review of reliable sources. Red Phoenixtalk 01:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't believe it didn't occur to me to check until now, but Googling "Nakamura Amusement Machine Company" ("Nakamura ... Company", despite some statements above to the contrary, being a fairly reasonable translation of "Nakamura Seisakusho" by itself, with "Amusement Machine" being a description of their key product) in quotes brings up a few Japanese pages of seemingly varying levels of trustworthiness, which mostly seem to go back to this. This, like "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company" seems, at least to me, like a more likely source of the abbreviation "NAMCo" than "Nakamura Manufacturing Company", and I'm not exactly seeing the flood of pre-web English-language sources that all uniformly refer to the company as either "Nakamura Seisakusho" or "Nakamura Manufacturing (Company?)" alluded to above -- seemingly one unattributed quotation and one article in the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry that use the latter and at least one patent application that uses the former. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: A look through the sources I reviewed suggests the same. The when and what specifically also seems to be in dispute in modern sources - ergo, my desire to try and find a period-based source, maybe in an old issue of Cashbox or so. Red Phoenixtalk 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Jason Sendwe
- Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks appropriate (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HumanxAnthro
Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've split two of them, including that one specifically. - Indy beetle ( talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility review
The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Ceoil
Reading through; first impression is that the lead is very strong from a prose POV, while the text in the body covers very complex political and sociologic dynamics, but is largely clear and precise. The references, from 10 minutes of looking, seem from the first quality of sources, but more later. Quibbles to follow, beware. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- It might be worthwhile, as you have the sources fresh in mind, creating an article for Association Générale des Baluba du Katanga.
- These sources are not employed in the inlne citations: Clarke, Stephen John Gordon (1968), East Africa and Rhodesia. 39. London: Africana 1977 - consider employing or moving to further reading
- Removed.
- I agree with the point above re overlong and thus dense paragraphs, and have split a few. Note, generally much prefer longer rather than stubby paras, but some here had been mindbending.
- Sendwe was slated to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - "slated" should be "chosen"
- Done.
- On 19 October, three days after Tshombe concluded a deal with Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu to "neutralise" Lumumba, Sendwe was incarcerated by central government officials. The United Nations (UN) quickly secured his release on the basis of parliamentary immunity. As we are so specific re three days, can we better define "quickly". Also the scare quotes around "neutralise" seem coy.
- The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.
- Presumably so, as it was UN sanctioned, we know the day of release, so you can state. The scare quotes seem to avoid the issue; the article test does not indicate this "this context-death" you are here implying. Ceoil ( talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed the "quickly"; Gerard and Kucklick do not provide a date for Sendwe's release. And to clarify, "neutralize" is the term used by the source, quoting Mobutu. The full quote is "neutralize Lumumba completely, if possible physically". Thus, the word is meant to be open ended. I didn't see the point in explaining all of this in the text of this article since that fact mostly pertains to Lumumba. Gerard and Kucklick seem to frame Sendwe as Mobutu's bargaining chip with Tshombe, so I'd rather focus on what happened to him then all of the intrigue behind Lumumba's downfall.
- Ok. And I take your point re "neutralize". Ceoil ( talk) 08:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.
- the only figure with enough clout in Katanga to challenge Tshombe - "clout" is vague, state if either or both "political or popular clout...."
- Qualified as "political".
- This article needs a content review by an expert or at least a very well informed editor;
there are passages that indicate romanticasation.Best I can offer here is spot check on compliance with utilised sources, which will move onto in a week or so. Delegates pls keep open until then. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC) - Who is Erik Kennes and who made him boss, and of what. Similarly, we are given no indication of Kabuya Lumuna Sando's authority.
- Political scientists, qualified.
- Kabuya, noting the newer clothing worn by the soldiers...He reasoned that - "newer clothing" obviously is flimsy legal basis - "claimed" rather than "reasoned"
- Qualified clothing claim as "allegedly" and changed reasoned to "argued".
- through his success with national and international figures - how. Friendship, negotiation, strong arming, what?
- Negotiation. Added.
- In 2011 a congress of the "Luba People" declared that Sendwe was among "our valiant martyrs",[90] but there is little study of him in Congolese historiography.[91] - Noticed this too, and almost nothing in English. Why is this I wonder, if the article is give (probably) speculate on reasons from later sources?
- Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
- ok Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
- (On 28 November) a new état d’exception (state of emergency) was.... - a new one? Article doesn't seem to mention the old one. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good enough Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- To note, the below are nitpicks and am leaning support on prose. Source review to follow.
- Over time the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga while Belgium gradually withdrew its support for it - This implies cause and effect. Bridge with "and" rather than "while" if the meaning is not "Belgium gradually withdrew its support because the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga.
- Changed.
- His attempts to do so as well as his hopes... - no big deal, but a bit gushy, maybe aims rather than hopes
- Revised.
- were stymied by the Belgian government, which disliked his closeness to Lumumba - "disliked" is a bit coy, can you spell out the political/strategic reason. Also who says "stymied" anymore..."blocked" or "frustrated"
- Kennes writes (translated from French): "Jason Sendwe, State High Commissioner, wants to fully play his role as mediator, by trying to integrate Balubakat and Conakat representations at the provincial level and national, and keeping Katanga in the national fold. His initiatives are thwarted by the deputy chief of staff of the Belgian Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens, Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, on the pretext that Sendwe is subservient to the Lumumba government with which 'any attempt at fruitful collaboration was henceforth doomed to certain failure'. It is not certain, however, that local and provincial officials followed Sendwe in this way." As such, I've revised that part of the sentence to say were frustrated by the Belgian government, which perceived Sendwe as an instrument of the Lumumba Government, with whom they had tense relations. More info on Belgium's bad relations with the Lumumba Government at Lumumba Government. I'm not quite sure what the "strategic" reasoning was, other than that they simply didn't trust Sendwe.
- Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - Were the millitary that disorganised; part..ie send a bunch of guys...should it be lead the "northern offensive" or something
- More on that offensive plan (the part that was actually executed) here: Invasion of South Kasai. The ANC was very much disorganized, my impression is that a lot of the affair was simply gathering what troops were loyal enough and ordering them to attack. If I had info on troop numbers or units I would have included it.
- The dismissal caused
a substantial amount ofturmoil- Changed to political turmoil.
- to serve on a reconciliation commission to achieve an understanding between Kasa-Vubu...
to achieve...tasked with- Revised.
- Overall the writing is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support substantive issues dealt with. Ceoil ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
More than three weeks in and this has attracted little attention and no supports. Unless it receives considerably more attention over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to Ceoil's deleted comment - which was fine. But Indy beetle, if you can call in any favours to get further commentary here, I suggest that you do so soon. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Ergo Sum
I am by no means a subject matter expert on Congolese politics, so I have to defer to those more knowledgable on questions of comprehensiveness. Ergo Sum 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is there no link for Mwanya?
- No, it was/is apparently a very small place.
- Can link nationalism in the lead.
- Linked to Congolese nationalism (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
- Can also link "the country's independence" to Congo Crisis
- Added as a see also section link under "Rise to prominence". I don't like making Congolese independence synonymous with the Congo Crisis, there was a five day interval between those two things.
- Can combine the two lead sentences about June 1964
- Done.
- Can link nursing
- Done.
- Optional, but could consider wrapping "École officielle pour Infirmiers à Élisabethville" and other French phrases with {{Lang}}
- "by the lack of educational opportunity under colonial rule" - this can use some explanation. What exactly was lacking? Were there simply no medical schools, were they restricted only to certain people, etc.
- No proper medical schools, revised.
- Is there any more specific information available about his marriage, such was when it was or to whom?
- No, not that I've uncovered.
- Sadly, this information is not known for him and a lot of other mid-level Congolese politicians of this era.
- "the stated aim to encourage" - the construction I see much more frequently is "aim of encouraging". Just something to consider
- Done.
- "leadership style" - what was his style?
- Changed to "dynamism", word used by the source.
- I don't love the vertical list of 3 political positions, but I don't believe it contradicts any MOS rules
- Can link xenophobia
- Done.
- "elected with 20,282 votes" - this clause strikes me as a bit abrupt. Perhaps rephrase to "Sendwe was elected to the Chamber of Deputies with 20,282 votes..."
- Done.
- "abstain from sitting, thus when the assembly" - I believe this is a comma splice. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon or period.
- Done.
- Should link Belgian Parliament
- Done.
- Why is "outlawed" put in quotations marks
- The source also puts it in quotes.
- I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
- That makes sense. It would be good if you could clarify this meaning in the text, or at least add a footnote. At the moment, it just is not clear what it is meant to communicate. Ergo Sum 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would like to, but that might be a breach of WP:SYNTH. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense. It would be good if you could clarify this meaning in the text, or at least add a footnote. At the moment, it just is not clear what it is meant to communicate. Ergo Sum 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
- I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source also puts it in quotes.
- "attitude against Katanga and Belgium gradually withdrew" - should probably be a comma after Katanga
- Done.
- Not sure government should be capitalized in Adoula Government
- Sources are very much mixed on this style, but per MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think this is how it should be done.
- vis a vis is usually hyphenated and accented
- Done.
- "at 22:00 on 23 December" - need a comma at the end
- Done.
- "probably so he could use them" - using probabilistic language in the voice of Wikipedia usually encounters some pushback. It would be best to specify who is saying "probably"
- The UN, revised for clarification.
- "executive position at a company" - is there any information on which company or in what industry?
- Nope, the importance of this just seems to be he would get a cushy salary in a place where he could do little political damage so he would shut up.
- " in a vote, 28–3" - can replace the comma with "of"
- Done.
- "On 27 May," - article has thus far eschewed commas after introductory prepositional phrases, but best not to start now
- Removed.
- I generally support linking words and phrases that can have technical meanings, including political concepts. When there is doubt, I tend to link. Not required, but might be considered.
- {{Use dmy dates}} would be useful, plus a spelling convention template, e.g. {{Use British English}}, if applicable.
That's all I have for now. Ergo Sum 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the substance. I only quibble about the one remaining point above (re "outlaw") but think the article is ready for FA. Ergo Sum 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
Consider me a non-expert.
- "with a brief interruption." when was the interruption?
- From 15 March to 27 April 1964 he did not hold the office, this all due to political maneuverings in the province. I didn't think this was worth getting into in the lede.
- I think I agree. I withdraw this concern. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- From 15 March to 27 April 1964 he did not hold the office, this all due to political maneuverings in the province. I didn't think this was worth getting into in the lede.
- "and his reputation thereafter drifted into obscurity." Delete thereafter as it is unnecessary.
- Done.
- "to a Baluba family." Baluba is an uncommon term. I would add a small descriptor of who they are at the end of this sentence to explain who this group is without clicking into their Wikipedia article.
- It was an ethnic group. There's not that much more to say about it DUEly than that, would "ethnically Luba family" work?
- I don't think Luba would work either, as that is another uncommon term. What about, "to a Baluba family, the indigenous peoples in the south-central region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." (or something similar) and use the [2] source in Luba people? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added something to that effect.
- I don't think Luba would work either, as that is another uncommon term. What about, "to a Baluba family, the indigenous peoples in the south-central region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." (or something similar) and use the [2] source in Luba people? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was an ethnic group. There's not that much more to say about it DUEly than that, would "ethnically Luba family" work?
- In the lede, it says he couldn't be a doctor due to "to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony" but in the body it says he was restricted by " the lack of medical schools in the Congo." These need to match.
- Fixed.
- "He was able amass much of their support through his dynamism and frequent interactions with the population." This sentence sounds like WP:PUFFERY and not encyclopedic. I think you should describe what he did specifically to get their support (Did he travel around to give speeches to villages? Did he organise any campaigns?)
- This was the words of journalist Evariste Kimba, who joined CONAKAT. This point is rather vague, so I could either attribute it in text or delete, whichever you think is best.
- I would attribute this opinion in text to Kimba. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done.
- I would attribute this opinion in text to Kimba. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This was the words of journalist Evariste Kimba, who joined CONAKAT. This point is rather vague, so I could either attribute it in text or delete, whichever you think is best.
- I think the list of his three tenents would be better as prose.
- Done.
- "In May he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the American government." What was the purpose of this trip? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?
- The purpose was probably a goodwill trip and an attempt by the US to create connections with key Congolese politicians. CRISP usually added information that was timely and relevant, but obviously the lasting notability of this trip seems minimal (in contrast to trips by other Congolese that fostered longer standing connections in Belgium or the Eastern Bloc). I'll remove it if you think it adds nothing.
- I don't think it adds to the article. I would remove. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done.
- I don't think it adds to the article. I would remove. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The purpose was probably a goodwill trip and an attempt by the US to create connections with key Congolese politicians. CRISP usually added information that was timely and relevant, but obviously the lasting notability of this trip seems minimal (in contrast to trips by other Congolese that fostered longer standing connections in Belgium or the Eastern Bloc). I'll remove it if you think it adds nothing.
- "In the national elections before the Republic of the Congo's independence on 30 June 1960 Sendwe was elected" comma after 1960
- Done.
- "Invested with the responsibilities of his office," Sounds puffery and POV. Perhaps, "After assuming the role of State Commissioner of Katanga, he attempted to restore central control over the province." Also, what does central control mean? I would change this wording.
- Revised, also "central government control".
- "Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army" Who chose him? What were the circumstances of him being chosen?
- See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
- Do any sources describe who or the reasons he was chosen? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- To reiterate, no.
- Do any sources describe who or the reasons he was chosen? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
- "brokering an understanding between Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba" What's an understanding? A peace deal, a ceasefire, a political alliance?
- Revised to say "political agreement". This was meant to break the constitutional deadlock that the situation left the country in (see Dissolution of the Lumumba Government), and probably would have involved a revised coalition government.
- "to neutralise Lumumba," What does this mean? What happens when Lumumba is neutralised?
- See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
- So after reading Ceoil's comments above, I get the impression that neutralise is quoting Mobutu? If so, why not just attribute what Mobutu said to him? That will remove the impression that this is scarequotes, and conveys to the reader that the ambiguity of neutralise is coming from Mobutu, and not OR from the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Attributed.
- So after reading Ceoil's comments above, I get the impression that neutralise is quoting Mobutu? If so, why not just attribute what Mobutu said to him? That will remove the impression that this is scarequotes, and conveys to the reader that the ambiguity of neutralise is coming from Mobutu, and not OR from the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
- "On the whole his tour improved security in the region," Delete on the whole
- Revised.
- "and BALUBAKAT began to organise its own administration" -> "and BALUBAKAT organised"
- Done.
- "the UN feared this was so he could use them to boost his support." Does the "them" refer to the UN, or to the refugees?
- Refugees; clarified.
- "which was reversed by the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister." So did the Deputy PM reverse the ban, or did he convince Sendwe to reverse the ban?
- The Deputy PM simply overruled him; revised.
- "On 27 May 1964 a coup in Albertville by Simba rebels led by Kabila overthrew Sendwe's government." put a comma after rebels and Kabila
- Done.
- "including having him shot," -> including executing him
- Done.
- "reestablish his authority" His authority as what?
- The fact that he was leader of the Nord Katanga government is mentioned two sentences previously, I don't think the point needs clarification, though if you insist I can add "authority as provincial president."
- "Political scientist Erik Kennes examined various testimonies." testimonies about what? I assume Sendwe's death, but this sentence's wording is awkward.
- Clarified.
- "wanted Sendwe dead so as to make rapprochement with Tshombe easier." -> wanted Sendwe dead to make rapprochement
- Done.
- "Kennes discounted the theory, reasoning that it was unlikely" -> Kennes reasoned that this was unlikely
- Done.
Those are my comments in the first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I responded to some comments above. If I didn't comment, it means I think the issue is resolved or I will check when I do another readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indy beetle Pinging just in case you didn't see my above comments. There are some points that I responded to that need to be resolved before I do another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I responded to some comments above. If I didn't comment, it means I think the issue is resolved or I will check when I do another readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments, Part 2
- "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo)" Does this sentence mean that he was PM or DRC, then the PM of RoC, or does it mean that the RoC used to be called the DRC? Please clarify in the article.
- The "Rise to prominence" section is very long; consider breaking it up with level 3 headings or with another level 2 heading.
- "He undertook another pacification trip in July." Was this pacification trip also in Belgium?
- Northern Katanga, clarified.
- "On 2 August a new government was" -> "On 2 August a new government in Congo was" or something similar, to identify which government.
- "An état d’exception (state of emergency) was proclaimed on 28 November" Why? Why this date?
- "Though he had the support of most of the Katanga Baluba and the BALUBAKAT deputies in Parliament, the Adoula Government sought to divide Katanga to weaken it while BALUBAKAT officials in northern Katanga wanted an exclusive polity in the region under the domination of their own party." Can this sentence be split in two?
- "On 15 March[68]" Since 68 is cited at the end of the sentence, I do not think you need a footnote here, as it might be WP:OVERCITE. You could also move [67] to the end of the sentence if it doesn't verify the 15 March date.
Those are my comments from the second readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Source for him being second? (And this should be split to
|order=
)- Yes, Hoskyns 1965 p. 377 which is in the text. Also this is not a matter of he was the second person to hold the office of deputy premier, the office he held was "Second Deputy Prime Minister", because he was one of three deputy PMs at this time.
- This isn't clear from the text as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Hoskyns 1965 p. 377 which is in the text. Also this is not a matter of he was the second person to hold the office of deputy premier, the office he held was "Second Deputy Prime Minister", because he was one of three deputy PMs at this time.
- "He was educated in Methodist schools and medical institutions" - the text makes a point of saying there weren't medical schools available, would suggest rewording. Similarly the following sentence, "Unable to become a doctor due to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony", doesn't quite line up with the body text
- Clarified; for the record, the Belgian Congo had plenty of nursing schools for black Africans, just not medical schools where one could get an MD.
- FN66 leads to a general Google search
- Fixed.
- Be consistent in when you include publication location
- Colvin: verify publisher?
- Not sure what you mean, the publisher was Ferwin.
- The linked version gives a different name; are you looking at another version? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, nm, fixed typo.
- The linked version gives a different name; are you looking at another version? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean, the publisher was Ferwin.
- Gérard-Libois: who was the translator?
- Hoskyns 1969 has a double location
- Horizon: is there a specific article being cited here? What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- There probably is an article, but google books only has the compilation and I can't pin down the article title. The magazine was apparently affiliated with Rhodesian Selection Trust, a mining conglomerate. Probably biased and pro-Tshombe for sure, but I don't see why their use as a source of the single point would be much in doubt.
- Did the magazine have an editorial policy of some kind? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unclear, though it did have an editorial staff and its office was in the Elkaim Building along Cecil Avenue in Ndola. It seems academic sources have treated it as a reliable source for local mining issues; this book cites it at least four times and this one and this one cite it at least once. According to this source the magazine won some awards in 1960, though it is unclear what for.
- Did the magazine have an editorial policy of some kind? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- There probably is an article, but google books only has the compilation and I can't pin down the article title. The magazine was apparently affiliated with Rhodesian Selection Trust, a mining conglomerate. Probably biased and pro-Tshombe for sure, but I don't see why their use as a source of the single point would be much in doubt.
- How does Kennes meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- For one it is a PhD thesis. Two, the thesis has been cited by other reliable works such as the Provinces series edited by Jean Omasombo Tshonda and published by the Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Three, Kennes was already an established researcher on African affairs who had written journal articles before writing that thesis; this confirms that in 2000 he was working at the African Institute in Tervuren. This also includes more detail on him. He wrote a biography on Laurent-Desire Kabila in 2003 which has been cited by others (example). Since writing that thesis in 2009 he has written/coathuored several works published by university presses, including The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home (used in this article).
- How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
- Omasombo 2014 is missing publisher
- Fixed.
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator query
Hi Indy beetle, have you addressed all of Z1720's points? If so, could you ping them? Similarly with Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: working on it, I've been busy these past few days. I'll ping them when I've responded to all of their comments. - Indy beetle ( talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Code of Hammurabi
- Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: I haven't seen you active for a while, I hope you are still there. Wretchskull ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: Check your talk page. Wretchskull ( talk) 18:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: I haven't seen you active for a while, I hope you are still there. Wretchskull ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Spot checks from Ovinus
- [5]: Footnote, not a source
- Done. Wretchskull ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- [11]: I'm getting a 404
- That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
- [25]: good
- [31]: good
- [40]: good
- [41]: good
- [44]: good
- [53]: good
- [57]: good
- [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
- [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
- [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
- [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
- [169]: good
- [176]: good
- [177]: good
I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ovinus:@Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu ( talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.
- [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
- [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
- Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
- Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
- [144, now 143]: Reworked.
- [150, now 149]: Rephrased.
@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.
- Louvre is (/was) a web page.
- Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
- Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
- Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
- Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
- Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
- Added for 71.
- 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
- Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
- 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
- Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
- Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus ( talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Fowler&fowler
- I'm making a placeholder here. Delighted to see a traditionally encyclopedic article here for a change. Will begin soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Fowler&fowler: are you still interested in reviewing? Emqu ( talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, but I forgot all about this article. I don't have too much time right now, but if it is archived—which I hope it is not as it reads very well in my cursory reading—I promise I will come back and review it with care in its second appearance. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: Not to worry. I'm active now so should be able to stop it getting archived. Would you feel able to support it? If you would rather not without a full review then I understand. Either way I'm glad you like it. Emqu ( talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, but I forgot all about this article. I don't have too much time right now, but if it is archived—which I hope it is not as it reads very well in my cursory reading—I promise I will come back and review it with care in its second appearance. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Fowler&fowler: are you still interested in reviewing? Emqu ( talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from The Land
I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!
I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.
This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @The Land: Very late response, but thank you!
- I have to say, 'where it is assumed to be a true code of laws, and that its provisions are laws' seems ungrammatical to me. I have inserted a compromise. I am happy with the other edit you made.
- I suppose that depends how you define 'impact'. In terms of influence on modern laws or legal thought, probably only via Roman/Greek/Biblical laws, if it influenced those. Most legal scholars I have read take it as given a) that its entries had legal weight, b) that it was a full code of laws, and c) that it was the first code of laws. Then they move on to whatever point they are trying to make. Emqu ( talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Borsoka
Thank you for completing this interesting article. Please find my first comments below:
... his father Sin-Muballit ... Does the cited source verify it?
- Added.
... leaving his organisation intact Why is this statement relevant?
- It characterises him as sensible rather than vindictive or rash.
... forming alliances to do so when expedient Does this statement provide actual information?
- Yes, surely...? Though I would agree that it isn't essential to the article. Removed.
All these preoccupations surface in the Code, especially in the prologue ... and epilogue.... OR?
- Removed.
...(e.g. 37–39, 51, 90–97) ... (e.g. 3154'–3164', 3240'–3253') What are these numbers? Consider moving them to a footnote.- Is the ISBN for Van De Mieroop (2007) correct?
- Have changed to the 2007 edition.
It was excavated by the French Archaeological Mission under the direction of Jacques de Morgan.[14] Susa is in modern-day Khuzestan Province, Iran (Persia at the time of excavation). Consider changing the sequence of the two sentences.
- Done.
- Introduce Father Jean-Vincent Scheil.
- Done.
- The introduction is problematic, because it is not verified (see my comment below).
- Can I just remove it? I didn't initially have one and it doesn't seem necessary to the article.
- Done.
- The editio princeps of the Code was published by Father Jean-Vincent Scheil in 1902, in the fourth volume of the Reports of the Delegation to Persia (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse). After a brief introduction with details of the excavation, Scheil gave a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images.[23] Editions in other languages soon followed: in German by Hugo Winckler in 1902, in English by C. H. W. Johns in 1903, and in Italian by Pietro Bonfante, also in 1903. OR?
- Surely a plain edition history is not OR??
- The above statements about the books are verified by references to the books themselves. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Meaning it's not OR, right?
- Does it state that it is the editio princeps? Borsoka ( talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Surely a plain edition history is not OR??
(1792–1750 BC) Repetition (that Hammurabi ruled from 1792 to 1750 BC is mentioned in the first sentence).
- Cut. Emqu ( talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- ...the French Dominican and Assyriologist who wrote the Code's editio princeps... OR? The same information is repeated some lines below.
- See above re Scheil intro. re editio princeps: I have now cited every instance.
- The relief appears to show Hammurabi standing before a seated Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice. Repetition.
- Thanks, done.
- ...before a seated Shamash... OR? (The source verifying the statement does not name the god. You may want to verify the statement with a reference to Roth.)
- Done.
- Shamash wears the horned crown of divinity and has a solar attribute, fiery rays,... OR?
- Addressed.
- ... in his editio princeps... OR? Perhaps italics?
- Added citation, and on my end at least it was already in italics. Emqu ( talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Recusing to review.
- There are several p. or pp. errors. Eg cites 21, 95, 118.
- Fixed.
- Bonfante is missing a publisher location and an OCLC.
- Added publisher. Couldn't find OCLC.
- It's 458622280.
- Added publisher. Couldn't find OCLC.
- Standardise your hyphenisation of ISBNs.
- Removed all hyphens.
- Are you sure about the ISBNs given for Barton, Driver and Edwards?
- Barton: I was using an online copy with no ISBN. I couldn't find an ISBN for that particular edition. Driver: fixed. Edwards: I think it's correct.
- Barton: In which case, where have you obtained the ISBN you give from?
- Driver: In which case, why are you giving one? (And where did it come from?)
- Edwards: I don't. Where are you obtaining the ISBN from? (Perhaps use the OCLC instead?)
- Barton: I was using an online copy with no ISBN. I couldn't find an ISBN for that particular edition. Driver: fixed. Edwards: I think it's correct.
- Breasted needs an ISBN.
- Fixed.
- You have given the ISBN for the 2015 reprint, not the 1916 edition you cite. Which did you obtain the information cited from?
- Fixed.
- The ISBN given for Davies is for the 2010 edition, not the edition cited.
- Fixed.
- Equitable Trust Company needs an OCLC.
- Again, I wasn't sure how to find this.
- WorldCat is your friend. Scroll down.
- Again, I wasn't sure how to find this.
- The ISBN given for Home is for the 2015 edition.
- Fixed.
- It still seems to be for the 2015 edition. Where are you obtaining it from?
- I cannot find the correct one anywhere. Do I need the OCLC, since I just got it from the URL?
- I don't think that you are getting the information from The Code of Hammurabi (1915). I don't even think that there is such an edition. You seem to be getting it from the Fordham University Ancient History Sourcebook and should cite it to there.
- I cannot find the correct one anywhere. Do I need the OCLC, since I just got it from the URL?
- It still seems to be for the 2015 edition. Where are you obtaining it from?
- Fixed.
- Are you sure about the ISBN given for Johns (1903a). Which, apart from other issues is the same as that given for Johns (1914).
- Fixed.
- 3601005123 is the ISBN of the 1980 edition, not the edition cited. Which did you obtain the information from?
- Fixed.
- Could you check all of the pre-1967 ISBNs and all of the works which don't have identifiers. There is a trend developing.
- Sorry about this, I think I just misunderstood how ISBNs worked. Have done this, minus a few I wasn't sure about. These were: Encyclopædia Britannica 11 (or whichever volume Johns 1910 is in); The Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1910; and the Wells 1920 edition.
- Encyclopedias don't need identifiers, so that's fine. The OCLC for Wells (1920) is 867104710.
- Sorry about this, I think I just misunderstood how ISBNs worked. Have done this, minus a few I wasn't sure about. These were: Encyclopædia Britannica 11 (or whichever volume Johns 1910 is in); The Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1910; and the Wells 1920 edition.
- As Stark is listed as a book, why is it under "Web" in "Sources"? It also needs a publisher location.
- Well, it's a newsletter, and I'm not certain whether it was printed. I'm also not certain whether simply being printed qualifies a newspaper to go under 'books and journals'. I wasn't sure what cite to use but thought book produced the best result. Added a location.
- Publisher locations: Why is the country given for "London", but not for "Bethesda"?
- That's the convention I was taught: that for U.S. locations, state name is sufficient. I don't think WP:MOS forbids this, and I have been consistent about it. Emqu ( talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You haven't given the state names: you have, I think, given the US Post Office codes. Mostly I was wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate Milan, Qxford, London etc, when it seems unlikely that there will be any confusion as to which is intended - you have, as you say, been consistent here; while "Bethesda, MD" probably doesn't tell a non-North America which of these is intended.
- I really was consistently applying the convention I was taught, which is a cannibalised APA. It is US-centric, but I am a "non-North American" and I find it perfectly clear. If you would like me to change it, then say the word.
- You haven't given the state names: you have, I think, given the US Post Office codes. Mostly I was wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate Milan, Qxford, London etc, when it seems unlikely that there will be any confusion as to which is intended - you have, as you say, been consistent here; while "Bethesda, MD" probably doesn't tell a non-North America which of these is intended.
- That's the convention I was taught: that for U.S. locations, state name is sufficient. I don't think WP:MOS forbids this, and I have been consistent about it. Emqu ( talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave things there for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ensure that each "Sources" list is in alphabetical order by (first) author surname.
- Some responses above and an additional comment. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Sorry, give me two days to address these queries and the others. Emqu ( talk) 11:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Done. Unless otherwise specified, I have added OCLCs using WorldCat (thanks for the tip). Emqu ( talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some responses above and an additional comment. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just Horne that I still have a query against, see above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Emqu, nudge. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just Horne that I still have a query against, see above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Note for the coordinators
The nominator, Emqu, has been inactive since 9 April. It may be time to archive this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Very sorry, I have been extremely busy and also didn't get notifications about these. If you could just leave the page open for two or three more days I will address everything. I am pleased that more people have commented and I look forward to replying. Emqu ( talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll give you another three or four days, then drop by again. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: I'm glad you came back, but make sure you check this page every now and then; there are more reviews and answers to your previous comments. Wretchskull ( talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll give you another three or four days, then drop by again. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Ajpolino
I admit I knew nothing about the topic except for the whole "eye for an eye" bit, so I'll be reviewing only on criterion 1a.
- Earlier law collections:
- Not a hill I plan to die on, but "... make it tempting to assume..." is odd to read in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a rephrase?
- "practice of law, from before..." - The comma seems purposeless; perhaps the whole ", from" could be removed safely?
- Copies>Louvre stele
- "However, others,..." could be shortened to "Others, including..."
- Jean-Vincent Scheil is wikilinked at second use rather than first.
- "...Elamite city of Susa. Susa is in modern-day..." - a bit choppy to read. How about "... Elamite city of Susa in modern-day..."
- Copies>Other copies
- I'm not sure I understand "a part of the scribal curriculum". If you're generally referring to texts typically copied by scribes, then I think it's fine. If you mean something more specific or different, perhaps a clarification is in order.
- It's momentarily confusing to read that the Louvre steel is "most complete" and later that "The additional copies fill in most of the stele's original text, including much of the erased section." Am I to understand that the known copies contain less complete fragments of the code, but happen to also include the sections erased in the Louvre stele? Or am I misunderstanding something?
- Early scholarship:
- "...first volume of The Outline of History, and to Wells too..." is clunky to read. How about "Outline of History, calling the Code 'the earliest known code of law'." or something that similarly avoids saying Wells twice in a dozen or so words.
- The two sentences "The Code was compiled... in the prologue" stand out as different from the who-said-what style of the surrounding paragraphs. You repeat the same information in the Prologue section ("The list of his... Hammurabi's reign"). I think it flows a bit better there, so I'd suggest removing it here. Alternatively you could just state it here; either way I don't think the reader needs the repetition.
- Prologue:
- I'm not sure I understand the purpose of "but is perhaps justified by Hammurabi's interest in his subjects' affairs." You just told us that the shepherd metaphor was common for rulers of that time and place. Is an additional justification necessary?
- Epilogue:
- I'm not demanding its removal, but I don't think the structured list of god(desse)s in order of invocation is particularly informative to a reader. It would be equally informative without breaking up the page to say "The epilogue continues in this manner, invoking (in order) Anum, Enlil...". Or it could be removed; we get the idea from your description just above.
More to come... Ajpolino (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emqu: Please keep this article on your watchlist, there are more replies to your previous comments as well as more reviewing above. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Featured article reviews
Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. |
Duke University
- Notified: Bluedog423, Tribe of Tiger, WikiProject Higher education
Myriad issues were raised at the talk page by RetiredDuke three months ago and do not appear to have gotten any engagement. They include excessive length and undue focus on certain areas, inadequate sourcing, and puffery. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Answering to the ping; it seems like there's no one actively maintaining this article to FA standards. The Notable People section is a sprawling mess, the article's organization is lacking ("Duke Alumni Association" and "Duke Magazine" should not be their own sections, for instance), PROMO abound (why even the logos for the Medical School and Kunshan), and I've highlighted in Talk several instances where the text is not supported by the sources provided. Just now, as an exercise, I've focused on that
Cultural groups on campus include the Asian Students Association
... paragraph, and both organizations that I've randomly checked, Blue Devils United and Mi Gente, are not mentioned in the links provided. So I suspect there's some of "I'm familiar with this subject so I'll just edit it to my knowledge" going on, that needs to be thoroughly checked. RetiredDuke ( talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
B movie
- Notified: Nominator is inactive, User:DCGeist was a frequent contributor but is now banned, WikiProject Film, 2021-04-28
I am nominating this article (a 2007 promotion) for featured article review for multiple reasons:
- The elephant in the room in this article's length, and it was brought up the first time this article was nominated for review. It is way WP:TOOBIG, with sections filling it with content as if there were no other articles to place them in. We have other B-movie subtopic articles to put this stuff in (B movies (Hollywood Golden Age), B movies in the 1950s, B movies (exploitation boom), Midnight movie and so on), and we're probably gonna need more.
- Adding to the length issue (as well as making this article at odds with 4 of the FA criteria) is content that is only tangentially related, particularly its excessive summaries of the state of the film industry in each era. Examples:
- "By 1990, the cost of the average U.S. film had passed $25 million.[155] Of the nine films released that year to gross more than $100 million at the U.S. box office, two would have been strictly B-movie material before the late 1970s: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Dick Tracy. Three more—the science-fiction thriller Total Recall, the action-filled detective thriller Die Hard 2, and the year's biggest hit, the slapstick kiddie comedy Home Alone—were also far closer to the traditional arena of the Bs than to classic A-list subject matter.[156]")" If the article is going to talk about how major studios impacted the possibility of lower-budget movies being made and released, it should stay focused on that.
- How does bringing up which people led certain major studios per era add to the topic?
- There is content in the lead not summarized in the article. Putting Karen Black, Bela Lugosi and other actor names in a word search feature shows that those names only appear one time in the article (in the lead); that should tell you something.
- Info like this needs citing: "A B movie or B film is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film."
Simply put, the article is a unnavigable mess. On the positive side, much of the content is cited with professional high-quality book sources, but the issues above are too significant not for this to be reviewed. I suspect what should be in this article and what should be split would be up for long debate, so I think it'll need more time and work for this to be FA quality, and I mean lots of it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Lee Smith (baseball)
- Notified: Wknight94, Nishkid64, MisfitToys, WP Chicago, WP Biography, WP Baseball, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP College basketball, Noticed in early April
This 2007 promotion (and BLP article) isn't quite to the up modern FA sourcing standards. There's some uncited text throughout, as well as places where the cited sources don't support the text. For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. And for "Smith compiled his worst ERA of the decade—although he saved more than 30 games for the first time in his career. In Game 2 of the NL Championship Series, Smith recorded two outs for the save to give Chicago a 2–0 lead in the best-of-five series against the San Diego Padres, putting them one win away from the World Series", only the first sentence is supported by the source. There are likely more issues with that throughout the article. Significant sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall.
is quite alarming, especially if said source explicitly refutes such assertions (I haven't checked); while the assertions are probably not controversial enough to trip BLP alarms, such poor sourcing, and especially false information if present, is incompatible with Featured Article status. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)- Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertions are accurate, although rather spurious points to make, IMO. From the Retrosheet career history of Smith here we can see a) in "Batting Record" the first hit of his career came in 1982, and b) in "Pitching Record" the last start of his career also came in 1982. Drilling into his 1982 batting record (here) and 1982 pitching record (here) confirms that both events (first hit and final start) came in the game of July 5 against Atlanta (boxscore here). That said, a passing mention that Smith's first major league hit was a home run (which likely was covered in contemporary news reports) would suffice, IMO. I should be able to source that via newspapers.com and update the passage in the next day or so. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article has multiple NPOV(For instance- 'pitched fantastically'. Please define fantastically), OR('He finished the season with 37 saves and a 3.47 ERA, which was more than a point higher than the league average' This isn't supported by the inline citation and I doubt the league ERA was 2.47 that year), and not referenced (For instance- "For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival." or "His ERA was nearly as high as the league average, his strikeout rate was the lowest in 15 years,") issues. Not one or two. A half a dozen at least and with me only checking bits of the article. The article needs cleanup not Featured Article status....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: - According to B-Ref, AL ERA for 1995 was 4.71 and the MLB average ERA for same season was 4.45. So it's unclear what's going on here - may be an error for lower and original research comparing against the AL average for said year, or who knows what original research happened here. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- What would make sense is: Smith's ERA was 3.47, which was slightly more than a run better that the AL average of 4.71. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have updated accordingly, along with an added source for that season's league average (AL). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: - According to B-Ref, AL ERA for 1995 was 4.71 and the MLB average ERA for same season was 4.45. So it's unclear what's going on here - may be an error for lower and original research comparing against the AL average for said year, or who knows what original research happened here. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: Dmoore5556 has been working on the article. Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a few items on 29 May that caught my eye
, but I'm not actively working on the article at this point. As noted above, there are some sourcing and NPOV issues ("pitched fantastically" is egregious enough that I'm happy to remove that now). I'm a bit unsure of context here—is there an ongoing effort to revise prior FA articles to meet newer/current standards, or ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)- Replied on Dmoore5556's talk. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Hog Farm. I'll work on the article further, as time permits. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Replied on Dmoore5556's talk. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a few items on 29 May that caught my eye
Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector
- Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Physics, Diff of talk page notice, 2021-04-17
I have a number of concerns about this article's compliance with the FA criteria. First and foremost (as pointed out by Hog Farm), many places are entirely unsourced; this presents serious concerns under criterion 1c. Additionally, some of the sources that do exist are of questionable reliability: many are quite old (two are from 1710, while others are from 1847, 1859, 1891, 1901, 1915, 1919, 1923, etc.). The article is also nearly impossible to understand without a graduate-level mathematics education (some of this is inevitable given the topic, but more "engaging" prose is likely required nonetheless), and a quick perusal yields a self-reference ("as described elsewhere in this article") and numerous unnecessary duplinks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- "As described elsewhere in this article" is completely different from what is described at MOS:SELFREF -- all it needs is an appropriate section link (as in Template:Section link). And mathematical truths are not time-dependent, so there is no reliability whatsoever with using historical sources. (There may be other reasons to prefer more modern sources, though -- like the primary vs. secondary distinction, or to ensure due weight.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a historical topic, deeply rooted in the development of classical mechanics and of significant importance for quantum physics as well, so historical references are good things. They shouldn't be the only citations, of course, and they aren't. There's repeated use of Hall's 2013 textbook, for example, and seven references to Goldstein. The topic is one that a physics student would encounter in a graduate course, and so per WP:ONELEVELDOWN, it ought to be accessible to advanced (or courageous) undergraduates. It needn't teach what vectors are, but it shouldn't presume knowledge of symplectic manifolds. For the most part, it hits this mark. (I'd say that it gets slightly harder at § Poisson brackets, but there's not a lot that can be done about that; that's just the material.) A few more pointers to textbook chapters where details are derived and discussed might be helpful. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- (The following comments should not alter it's FA status, which seems fine to me.) My complaint is that perhaps its written at too low a level, not too high a level. My impression is that all of the formulas are written at a level accessible to undergraduates in physics/math. (The original author who created the FA article -- User:WillowW was an undergrad, and did not have a formal background in advanced mathematics/physics. This is definitely not "grad level" stuff, which is why its a bit weak in places. It's peddling as fast as it can in first gear, never shifts into second.) What's missing is a slightly more advanced treatment of the group manifold. Right now, as it stands, the article notes that the lie algebra generated by L_i, D_i can generate the Lie groups SO(4), SO(4)/Z_2, SO(3)xSO(3) and SO(3,1). That's fine, but the relationships between these is less than entirely clear. (well, actually SO(3)xSO(3) does not seem correct!?) Where does the Z_2 come from, or rather, why does it go away? Why isn't there a SO(3,1)/Z_2? What happens in the parabolic case (in the conventional sense of elliptic==bound orbits, hyperbolic==unbound orbits), where the manifold flops from SO(4) to SO(3,1)? I guess that for the parabolic case, the manifold is SO(3)xR? It would be nice to see how this manifold flops over as a function of the energy. What's the quantum mechanics of the hydrogen atom at n=infty, right at that limit point where the discrete spectrum flops over into the continuous spectrum? What's the spectral density? (The
spectral densitydensity of states is the number of energy levels N=N(E) per unit energy interval: dN/dE. For bound states, it is a sequence of dirac deltas accumulating at 13.7. For the continuous spectrum, its flat for large energies. Is it still flat at the accumulation point? Or are there wiggles? Other systems behave as if the deltas widen into gaussians right at this point, and these sum up into a wiggly density. I honestly don't know what happens for the hydrogen atom.) I would expect the above questions to be handled in a review article; however, WP featured articles are written at a lower level and less stringent criteria than review articles, so the above comments shouldn't damage the FA status. (Review articles are typically 5-10 times longer than an FA could ever be, and aim at a target audience of professors and experts, rather than students. I have no clue if a review article for LRL has ever been written, ever.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- A warm thank-you to the reviewers who have written so far! Re-reading the article, I was actually surprised at how good and thorough the article is and how well it's stood up over the past 14+ years: a tribute to the editors who worked on it so scrupulously. As the erstwhile "chief contributor", I am not at all opposed to improving the article further, but I'm also conscious of the warning: primum non nocere. Here are my suggestions for what I can do:
- I will seek out additional references to supplement the 50 citations already present. I noticed a few gaps right away, e.g., in the Context section, the remarks concerning conserved quantities in central-force problems and their relationship with symmetries. Well-known to advanced undergraduates, but worthy of citation. I currently don't have access to a university library, however, so I would be grateful for help in finding citations, esp. from colleagues at WP:Physics.
- The duplinks and the intra-article reference can be eliminated.
- I'm sympathetic to arguments that the level of the article is too low or too high. Most will agree that it's difficult to elucidate such an (admittedly abstract) topic both accessibly and encyclopedically. (As Einstein puts it, Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) That's why, through the efforts of many editors, the article was designed to have a "ramp-up" structure, beginning simpler and gradually increasing in complexity, as discussed on the article's Talk page, two peer reviews, and FA candidacy. It was a delicate balance to strike, and I'm loath to tinker with the clockwork. I was happy to read XOR'easter's assessment that the article was well-suited for advanced undergraduates, since that was admittedly my target audience. (They seemed to me the most likely to profit from such an article.) Regarding the level and content of the article, I was also heartened by the praise of John Baez, which appeared roughly a year after this article became an FA and which could provide excellent source material to augment the article.
- Additional applications and/or deeper connections of the LRL-vector could be added with citations, but a practical alternative might be to start a daughter article.
- If there are other outstanding issues, I would ask Extraordinary Writ to list those in detail, so that we can set to work! :)
- Warm regards to one and all, Willow ( talk) 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you're still around! I think the flow of the article is fine (well, I only skimmed it, it seemed fine from a skim.) The penultimate paragraph from the Baez pdf should be inserted into this article, as it unlocks the "geometric insight" for why it is what it is. Although I'm still confused about the Z_2 which John does not seem to mention. The reason I'm picking on this is that eventually one sees other examples of Poisson manifolds, and its useful to compare those examples at that particular abstraction level. That particular level of abstraction was the launch-pad/foundation of mathematical physics, 1980's-onwards, when familiarity with all the geometry (e.g. instantons and Witten and Wess Zumino type stuff) became de rigeur in the theoretical physics world. This example sets you up on that launching pad. p.s. the history is very much appreciated. History is interesting. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- ZOMG!!! How lovely to talk with you again; I feel as if I bumped into an old friend at a costume party. :) Do you realize that today is the exact 3×5=15th anniversary of the first time we spoke? What a wonderful coincidence. Anyway, I'm plugging away at improving the article and thank you so much for your suggestions! I'm fond of history, too, and I'm glad you're still here. Willow ( talk) 16:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Close without FARC. There's been a lot of work on this article since I started the FAR, and I'm glad to say that all my concerns have been addressed. A number of references have been added, and most of the places without citations can probably be justified as being, for purposes of this article, uncontroversial. The remaining issues that I pointed out have either been resolved or convincingly determined not to be issues at all. Thanks to all (particularly WillowW – I'm glad to see that you're back in the saddle) for your work on getting this article spruced up. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Extraordinary Writ and everyone else who's been contributing! For my part, I'll continue to augment the article — hopefully without damaging it — since I daresay it's not yet as good as it could be; all are welcome to join in. :) Willow ( talk) 05:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
William Goebel
- Notified: Acdixon, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject United States, diff for talk page notification
I am nominating this featured article for review because major sourcing issues were identified by RD on talk but never fixed. In particular, the article cites book-length sources without giving a page number. Also, since there have been entire books written about the guy, it's not clear that the present article is WP:COMPREHENSIVE. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Making Waves (TV series)
- Notified: Bradley0110, WikiProject Television, talk page notification 2021-04-08
I am nominating this featured article for review because it does fails different criterias for a Featured Article. The lede alone looks to fail 2.a as it looks so bare. Also the Plot and Characters section does not have any sources behind it, which they may need to GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Close as it was nominated only a week after talk page notification when, according to instructions, you should wait two-to-three weeks or more after the notification to nominate. While this is a 2007 FA nomination that needs to be checked, I'm not noticing anything major, as the length is expected for a show that lasted for a few episodes and one season (although I haven't researched to see if there's any unused coverage to know how comprehensive the article is). Also, plot sections and characters generally don't need sources except for info that's up to subjective interpretation. There are, however, issues. Some citations have "[permanent dead link]" tags and could be archived, the lead is a little on the short side with nothing about its critical reception, and two reception sources are from unreliable tabloid newspapers; I generally wouldn't prohibit the use of tabloid sources for entertainment reviews, as these newspapers normally get in trouble for covering misinfo on more serious real-life issues, but I know more experienced FA reviewers would question it. Although the article definitely needs improvements, we must keep to FAR guidelines. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Place on Hold for one month, unless User:Bradley0110 indicates they have no intention of working on the deficiencies. GamerPro64, please follow the FAR instructions so as not to create extra work for Coords and reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really follow what the issues are here. Material like plot and characters that can be clearly verified by the show itself does not need to be sourced (so long as the show is still existent and published somehow), per MOS:PLOT's
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source
. Lead length is personal preference and this is within the band of acceptable range (this coming from someone who likes a much lengthier lead). But if you want it longer then how much work is it to bulk it up a bit yourself? The Daily Mirror removal is possibly necessary, as HumanxAnthro summarises well, but that doesn't require an FAR. A first read from top to bottom and skim of the references doesn't leave me with any particular urge to remove the gold star. Notice that the permanent dead links are not a problem because the references also work as references to the same articles in the print newspapers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Is there any indication that Sunday Mirror is any better source than Daily Mirror? It's looking like there's three citations that likely need to be replaced, although they only amount to two sentences between them. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I share the opinion of Bilorv. It doesn't hurt to have sources, but plot and cast and characters are basic facts verifiable by the show itself. It is standard practice to not include sources for a plot, and nothing in the cast and characters section strikes me as needing a secondary source. A sentence about the reception could be added to the lead as there is none currently. The Mirror sources should probably be replaced. Heartfox (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Great Lakes Storm of 1913
- Notified: Brian0918, GreatLakesShips, 7&6=thirteen, WP Lakes, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Canada, noticed in March
This 2005 promotion has not been reviewed since 2007, and needs a bit of a touchup for modern FA standards. The primary issue seems to be lack of inline citations in parts, although there are also some lesser layout issues caused by MOS:SANDWICHing. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I added in line citations and fixed and reformatted the book and other citations. Added more text.
- The "current values" is understated, and I don't know when anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed that. This was in the lead, and the answer is in the sourced body of the article. North8000 ( talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that there has been quite a bit of editing since the nomination was posted; could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- One of the references added during the improvements, Enns, appears to be possibly self-published. What are the author's credentials? Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Toronto Raptors
- Notified: Chensiyuan, Johnny Au, Ergotelis123, Charlesaaronthompson, WP NBA, WP Canada, WP Sports, WP Basketball, 2021-04-06
This 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since, and has accumulated uncited text and other issues, which isn't surprising, since the team has 6 division titles and a NBA championship since then. There's also some reference formatting issues, and dated text such as "Their television ratings, however, are considerably lower than other more established Toronto sports teams and most other sporting events aired on Canadian television" which is dated to a source from before the team went on the nice run mentioned above, so may no longer be accurate. Given that the team's best history of success is from after the last FA review, this probably needs a significant work-through. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC nothing is happening. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)striking out for now since it appears things are happening. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)- Comment: The article has much less activity from the regulars than when it became an FA, despite the fact that it won the NBA Championship since then. I mainly do maintenance on the Toronto Raptors article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Sabbatino, Amchow78, Leventio, and Bagumba for more input. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly has issues, but it can be fixed up given a few days. I can probably help with some of the citation issues in the article later tonight or tomorrow. Leventio (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's still being cleaned up, mainly by Leventio. There really isn't much of a deadline. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC alright you have had almost an entire month now to clean it up and browsing the article, I still see several unsourced paragraphs. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Stay in FAR - I'm fine with this staying in FAR for now, since active work is still occurring. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
History of timekeeping devices
- Notified: Keilana, Bibliomaniac15, Anonymous Dissident, Grimhelm, AndonicO, Zginder, Phoenix-wiki, WikiProject Time, WikiProject History of Science, talk page diff March 27
I am nominating this 2008 featured article for review because of the unaddressed concerns from RetiredDuke last month: lede that is too long, multiple talk page messages that are unanswered about inaccuracies, unsourced text and failed verification. While impressive, this will need a lot of careful work to bring back up to FA level. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for the notification but I am no longer active on Wikipedia and unfortunately I won't have time to bring the article back up to FA standards. My apologies! · Andonic contact 04:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just wanted to leave a message here. I can take a look next week and see what I can do. Unfortunately, it's been 13 years since we collaborated on this project, and we split up our work on the different sections (I worked on the ancient civilization section), so I am honestly not very familiar with much of the content anymore. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- All improvements are welcome, even if the star cannot be saved! FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Femkemilene, I'll put some work into fixing the issues already mentioned, as well as the MOS issues that need to be addressed. Amitchell125 ( talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- All improvements are welcome, even if the star cannot be saved! FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: Hi! I'll try to take a look at it but my time is quite limited these days. I'll do my best. Keilana (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: loads of editing going on. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold lots of progress in this article, already looks much better. Amitchell125 is a FA regular and editing looks steady and promising. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Nigel Kneale
- Notified: Angmering, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Isle of Man, 2021-03-24
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is bloated, with numerous paragraphs per section. The article also has unreliable sources (including IMDB) and inconsistent formatting of references. No edits have been made since I posted the notice. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- This revision from the time this FA was nominated in 2007 indicates not much has change. Same amount of references, same section length. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've divide the sections further so they're not bloated anymore, but for some the body text is now all italicized. I don't know what happen, I checked and I didn't see any incomplete italics in the source code to cause that. What happen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @HumanxAnthro: - I have corrected the italics issue. There was an issue with incomplete italics in the Halloween 3 section. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will say, however, that the IMDb cite issue was far less severe than I thought it would be judging by the comments made. IMDb cites were used only a very, very small minority of the time, and it turns out we probably didn't need as all they did was cite release date, Kneale and other actors and filmmakers for credits in productions. Plus, all the other sources are HQ and reliable, so this article may not be in the red zone after all. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so looking around, I'm trying to figure out what all still needs to be done here. There's two uncited spots, which I've tagged, as well as a large number of harv errors, most of which could probably be fixed by converting everything over to sfns. I haven't given this the full read-over, but this ought to be saveable, I think. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The layout has been vastly improved by sub-headings, so thanks to HxA for that edit. The IMDB references have been removed, but there are some other sources that might not be high quality. One is the Quartermass Homepage (Andrew Pixley): there is a book source for this organization but I cannot determine its editorial oversight of the website. Also, is ScreenOnline high quality? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- ScreenOnline seems to be affiliated with the British Film Institute. The Quatermass Home Page is partially written by Kneale himself, so it's a primary source and usage needs checked to make sure it's okay. The source I'm most concerned about is Off the Telly. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The layout has been vastly improved by sub-headings, so thanks to HxA for that edit. The IMDB references have been removed, but there are some other sources that might not be high quality. One is the Quartermass Homepage (Andrew Pixley): there is a book source for this organization but I cannot determine its editorial oversight of the website. Also, is ScreenOnline high quality? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Presumeably the Pixley & Nigel 1986 ref that's flagging an error should be Pixley & Kneale 1986, right? I can correct that, which will fix some of the harv errors, but since that is one of the sources challenged by Z1720 above, it may be better just to find an alternate source for that. Hog Farm Talk 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? `Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- HumanxAnthro? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still updating the cite format. It's just taking a little bit to do so because of multiple sources that are from the same publication and authors. We're almost there. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Vijayanagara Empire
- Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history, WP Karanatak, WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20
I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. Izno ( talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno ( talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of
Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital
in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke ( talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)- I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke ( talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
- For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
- Source:FA
- "Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
- I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
- Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
- "Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
- Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
- "There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
- Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno ( talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by Tayi Arajakate. Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have tred to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- *Citations needed
MOS:SANDWICH- Check punctuation on MOS:CAPTIONS
- I still had to correct these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have fixed some of the dash problems; please be aware of the difference between hyphens and WP:DASHes.
- MOS:SAID (notes that ... ).
- Still present, "Vanina notes that within the warrior Kshatriya class ... "
- There are considerable duplicate links: you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review if all are necessary.
- Check throughout for WP:OVERLINKing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1023538575&oldid=1023537622
There are HarvRef errors.
Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will start working on this from this weekend. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errorsSandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD ( talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as [[Sayana|Sayanacharya]], yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD ( talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD ( talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errorsSandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Continuing
- Faulty endashes, need to be corrected througout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1023537622&oldid=1023537354
- Faulty p vs. pp, please check throughout https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1023537354
- Further reading should be alphabetical; are all of those necessary, and should some of them be used as sources? (FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so Further reading should provide info that cannot be incorporated into the article.)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention. Pied Hornbill ( talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Mount St. Helens
- Notified: Mav, Astro-Tom-ical, User talk:Hike395, Hydrogen Iodide, dscos WP Geology, WP Mountains, WP NRHP, WP United States, WP Volcanoes, Climbing, 2021-01-03
This FA, last reviewed in 2006, has both a good bit of uncited text, and does not seem to be complete. The article does not discuss plant/animal life on the mountain, which seems relevant, and does not state if any further geological activity from the volcano is expected. Also, at least on my system, there is massive MOS:SANDWICH issues with images thrown in there haphazardly. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme - some easy to fix things:
- Some images have no alt= text
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- inconsistent use of nbsp; between St. and Helens.
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- inappropriate capitalisation in heading "Importance to Indigenous Tribes"
- Fixed
- External links may need to be converted to references that support extra text.
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- The science external link has a DOI 10.1126/science.aad7392 and author Eric Hand
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- The link for "Mount St. Helens photographs and current conditions" does not appear to go that that topic, instead redirects to Cascades Volcano Observatory.
- Mount St. Helens is part of the range of the Cascades Volcano Observatory, but I've removed that link as it has little to do with MSH in its current form. Hog Farm Talk 06:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2021 (UT Thanks for quick response
- reference 9 "Mount St. Helens at 35". has author Kathryn Hansen, but what is on that page now claims to be Aug 7, 2017 (after retrieval, so does it still confirm?)
- Fixed -- image removed, so reference no longer used. — hike395 (talk)
- Reference 21 has author Donal R. Mullineaux; DOI 10.3133/pp1563 and year 1996
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- reference 31 "Rock Slab Growing at Mt. St. Helens Volcano". has "others" cs1 maint error
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Missing topics due to see also
- visitor center for the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument is not mentioned here. This bit could include the link for Silver Lake (Washington)
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- Helenite should be mentioned inline and not just in a see also.
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
- Geology of the Pacific Northwest should be able to have a link in the main text.
- Fixed — hike395 (talk)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
As much as I like these old featured articles, this article feels more like a GA than an FA to me. I will do some fixing:
- Images trimmed and sent to Commons gallery. MOS:SANDWICH problem fixed.
- Alt text added for remaining images
- nbsp; added for all uses of St. and Helens
- @Ceranthor: we could use some of your FA magic here, if you're free to help out! — hike395 ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hike395 please remove the done templates and properly thread your responses without templates; templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause template limit problems, and responses should always be threaded. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, fixed. — hike395 ( talk) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hike395 please remove the done templates and properly thread your responses without templates; templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause template limit problems, and responses should always be threaded. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Started section on ecology, including disturbance ecology and biological legacies. Started section on future hazards. Both of these sections can be fleshed out further (either by me or other authors). — hike395 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, there has been some engagement since the nomination, but the issues are extensive and are largely unaddressed. Moving to FARC does not preclude that improvements may happen, but it's not looking promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: --- could you kindly list more of the extensive issues? I addressed all of the comments from Graeme, and added (some) material re ecology and future hazards, which Hog Farm thought was lacking. I can certainly do more research and add more material on ecology, but if you think there are other large problems, I'd rather spend my limited WP time addressing those. — hike395 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Will do (not quite yet, busy), but as this FAR is getting lengthy, I will probably start a section on article talk. Lengthy back and forth on FAR just makes a mess for the Coords to read, when all they really need is a summary of where things stand. If you want something to work on while you wait for me,
- huge portions of the article remain uncited, and
- anytime you see a US government website as a source, that citation should include a date. They are frequently updated, and our articles need to reflect those updates. There are considerable dated sources used here (and the dates of the versions used aren't even given)
- make sure ALL information is current.
- These three alone will keep an editor quite busy for quite a while. If these are completed, pls ping me to the article talk, where I will continue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to delay closing of the FARC? Ceranthor, who has a proven track record of writing FAs about Cascade volcanoes, is interested in taking this up, but will not be available for ~1 month. — hike395 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hike395: The FAR coordinators are willing to hold articles in FAR with ongoing work or discussion. I've seen some last way longer than a month before. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to delay closing of the FARC? Ceranthor, who has a proven track record of writing FAs about Cascade volcanoes, is interested in taking this up, but will not be available for ~1 month. — hike395 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hike395 and Ceranthor: It's been about a month - what are we thinking with regards to timeline here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have time for more work on this --- I'm leaving it to Ceranthor, who is quite skilled at FAs for Cascade volcanoes. Hopefully they have time now? — hike395 ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I think I should be able to get to this starting this week. ceranthor 00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hurray!! — hike395 ( talk)
- Hi, I think I should be able to get to this starting this week. ceranthor 00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Something I noticed while taking a look at this article is that the introduction is too small for its size. Most volcano articles of this size with FA status have a lead section that is at least three or four paragraphs long. Volcanoguy 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did a bit of extending on the prose, and I'm planning for it to be 4 paragraphs. Blue Jay ( talk) 05:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- See Coropuna and Newberry Volcano as examples. Volcanoguy 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Some of the images are missing alt texts. Volcanoguy 18:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi all, hoping to revamp the ecology and future hazards sections this coming week and copyedit as I go. ceranthor 12:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Update on progress so far?Blue Jay (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @The great Jay: - Edits in May so far have been primarily been some prose work and a bit of gnoming stuff, it looks like. Work on the largest issues seems to have stalled out a bit. Hog Farm Talk 16:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting on replacing old sources with new sources. Blue Jay (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Globular cluster
- Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, diff for talk page notification
I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fully agreed ( @Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Graeme Bartlett
- Images need to have alt= text to improve accessibility.
- Done. A little repetitive, I'm afraid, but then one glibular cluster looks a lot like another to the average reader. Maybe someone with more imagination could take a look. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Non-standard punctuation in use: “”
- Done. Wretchskull ( talk) 16:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Awkward wording: "contains an unusual number of a type of star" (unusual number could be 0, 999, 1234, large - be specific)
- Clarified to "unusually large". (The cited source simply said unusual; another source says unusually large.) —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was expecting to see a diagram of where globular clusters are in a galaxy, but there is none there. This could be in #Orbits section
- That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- If we add a diagram like one of these, it should go next to the fifth paragraph in the observation history section, which describes the distribution of globular clusters in the Milky Way and its historical importance in demonstrating that the Sun is not in the middle of the Milky Way. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- This one? Artist's conception and it says so, labels the Sun and M4, but also has some other text that is a little dated. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- If we could get the underlying image, that would be great. It's definitely an artist's conception of the Milky Way (can't have a real outside image that includes the Sun!) but may be real (modulo distance uncertainties) positions of globular clusters; the caption isn't clear about that. (That's my issue with the other one too.) —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- One reference (94) uses authors list with non-standard affilliations.
- Fixed. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- None of the authors appear to be linked in references. I know at least one of these is famous enough, and I expect several have articles. Some journals should also be linked in references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I added a few author links (necessarily biased towards authors I know or know of, since I know they're worth checking for a link!). I did not link to Charles Messier in the ref list, since he's linked in the main text. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Femke
I've looked through the article in search of sentences I believe need updating, and found a few.
- A total of 152 globular clusters have now been discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, out of an estimated total of 180 ± 20 (source 1992)
- Done (in fact, that 1992 source did not actually state the 152 number that I could find anyway, though by 2010 [the last update of the Harris catalog] it had only increased to 157). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Blue stragglers are mentioned in two different locations. Is there a problem with structure?
- This seems to be ok. Both locations, plus the image caption, appear to be sensible to mention this type of star. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 ( talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- However, a possible exception is when strong tidal interactions with other large masses result in the dispersal of the stars.
- Done. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse". In this type of cluster, the luminosity continues to increase steadily all the way to the core region
- Took a while, but I found and added a 2018 reference explicitly stating that that 20% number from a 1986 "preliminary" paper has stood up. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- A 2008 study by John Fregeau. Is this now common knowledge? If so, modren source + rephrase in wikivoice?
- I deleted that paragraph. The paper hasn't been widely cited in the 13 years since, and it doesn't seem to be a significant change in our understanding of clusters (despite a somewhat overhyped press release resulting in some media coverage -- not uncommon), so I don't think this is really worthy of a mention, and certainly not a full paragraph. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- potential computing requirements to accurately simulate such a cluster can be enormous -> next paragraph indicated it was done in 2010, so not that enormous after all?
- I clarified that that comment refers to a low-density cluster. I also added a ref from a few weeks ago showing that we're still very much pushing compute power -- saying it was "done" is relative, since there are still lots of approximations, and we need to make fewer as time goes on. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- How these clusters are formed is not yet known (2005 source)
- How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 ( talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Forbes et al reference is more about generic GCs; I added it in that context. (It is indeed a good overview; there's more from there that could be incorporated.) I added a more recent ref from the same team that originally discovered the unusual clusters with a bit more of an idea about how they form (accretion from satellites). —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 ( talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- In spite of the lower likelihood of giant planet formation, just such an object has been found in the globular cluster Messier 4. (2008 source). With most exoplanets being discovered in the last 10 years(?), I suspect more have been found in globular clusters. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I found a 2020 source confirming this is still the case. FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update zero edits to the FAR since Mar 13, and zero edits to the article since Mar 18. @Buidhe and Femkemilene: for status check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update all the above are addressed, but more cn tags appeared, of which one still needs to be found. FemkeMilene ( talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene ( talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Think I've got them all; thanks for your thoroughness. (Most were just mid-paragraph refs that also supported the untagged sentence after the ref, but these checks did lead to a couple minor but substantive tweaks.) —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene ( talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia comments
- Please install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review WP:OVERLINKing; perhaps many of them can be justified, but they need to be reviewed.
- MOS:CAPTIONS, full sentences should end in puncutation, sentence fragments should not.
- Done. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:BADITALICS, why is this italicized ? The difference between the relative and absolute magnitude, the distance modulus,
- Done. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia. Considerable instances of both however and also, which don't seem to be needed.
- Reduced a lot. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why are these in External links? The first seems to contain info that should be in a comprehensive article, and the second is a general blog.
- Key stars have different birthdays The article describes how stars in globular clusters are born in several bursts, rather than all at once.
- Globular Clusters Blog News, papers and preprints on Galactic Globular Clusters
This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.
- Why are these listed as "General sources", yet not formatted as the rest of the sources? They appear here as if they want to be External links rather than sources.
- Yes, I'll move those to External Links. Separately, I think renaming the "Sources" section to "Further reading" makes sense. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- NASA Astrophysics Data System has a collection of past articles, from all major astrophysics journals and many conference proceedings. And "a collection of past articles" is non-specific; which articles are we looking at for sources? (We can't just tell our readers, well, somewhere in this collection of past articles you can find what you need to verify content in this article.)
- Deleted. ADS is invaluable but isn't especially relevant to this article (not any more than it is to any astronomy article). —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- SCYON is a newsletter dedicated to star clusters. Same, which are used as sources? Who is the publisher? Which authors? What makes them reliable?
- MODEST is a loose collaboration of scientists working on star clusters. Same
- "Review articles", not used as citations, should be alphabetical.
- Done. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Books", Binnie and Spitzer each used only once, so why do they require a separate section, and Heggie is not used.
- Spitzer isn't used either (a conference proceeding from the previous year is cited). I don't know this specific Spitzer book and don't have immediate access to it, but everything he wrote is brilliant, so it's easy for me to imagine that this book is worth including as a classic reference. Binney & Tremaine is a very widely-used dynamics book that is very relevant to this topic. I don't know the Heggie book, but it too looks relevant. To me, that looks like a decently-curated list of more-in-depth books for further reading, so my vote is to keep it as is. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Footnote a seems to need a citation: Omega Centauri was known in antiquity, but Halley discovered its nature as a nebula.
- That's stated in reference 10, which is right next to the footnote. (It refers to the object as having been named by Ptolemy, which is pretty direct evidence that it was known in antiquity, although in different words.) Should the reference move into the footnote? —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I eventually figured out that ESO = European Southern Observatory, which is neither linked nor clarified in any citation that used the abbreviation.
- Example, this is an incomplete citation: "Ashes from the Elder Brethren". ESO. 0107. Missing date, missing access date, and tell us somewhere what ESO is. (There are others similar.)
- Similar problem here with SEDS ... what is that ?
- I have expanded the European Southern Observatory and Students for the Exploration and Development of Space acronyms in the references, used the press release templates, updated URLs and access dates where needed, and added ID numbers to releases for additional permanence. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Frommert, Hartmut (August 2007). "Milky Way Globular Clusters". SEDS. Retrieved February 26, 2008. I can't get the site to load and can't even tell what it is, or whether it is reliable.
- Works for me. I think this collection of pages is reliable; it's perhaps in a bit of a WP:SPS gray area. But it's also very carefully researched and exhaustive. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Patrick Moore (2005). Firefly Atlas of the Universe. Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-071-8. This is a book, requires a page number.
- This is missing author ... "Messier 13 (M13) - The Great Hercules Cluster - Universe Today". Universe Today. May 9, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
I will stop there for now; this is only a brief sampling, and the sourcing and citations here need to be cleaned up before further evaluation of the content. Please review all sources and citations for completeness. I am very skeptical that this article can retain status, and filling in the missing citations is not the same as making sure the older content is verifiable to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ Ashill can we have an update here? You identified a recent review article by Gratton, which would be good to have included in the text. You convinced me that the science doesn't change much, so I'll be satisfied if it's not used very extensively. Can the section on orbits be expanded? FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ Femkemilene I incorporated the Gratton reference in a few places. I also took the opportunity to cite a bit what hasn't changed much (eg basic understanding of formation). I merged the very short orbits section into the formation section, where it puts the significance of the orbits in context. I also merged a couple see alsos into the main text. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope to work towards the end of the FAR. So let me give another (final?) list of things I'd like to see improved.
- Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters -> uniquely in lede, and relatively old source. Lede should be a summary of the body.
- I agree that this information should be in the body of the article, along with some obvious data like the number in the Milky Way, but there doesn't seem to be a good place where it would fit. Perhaps in the observation section? A new section? 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I moved those numbers in to the paragraph in the observation section about numbers in the Milky Way; I think it fits there. Simplified lede to just say there are lots of globular clusters in other galaxies. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this information should be in the body of the article, along with some obvious data like the number in the Milky Way, but there doesn't seem to be a good place where it would fit. Perhaps in the observation section? A new section? 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The retrograde orbit may suggest that ω Cen is the remnant of a dwarf galaxy which was captured by the Milky Way -> is this level of uncertainty (may + suggest) still valid with modern sources?
- Still not entirely settled - added a recent paper on the subject. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- FN41 misses author and last updated date (found http://community.dur.ac.uk/ian.smail/gcCm/gcCm_top.html)
- Not sure what this refers to; if it's footnote 41 in this version (footnote 45 in the current version), the author, date, and access date are all listed. I also added an archive-url for that one. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The typical distance between stars in a globular cluster is about 1 light year,[41] but at its core, the separation is comparable to the size of the Solar System (100 to 1000 times closer than stars near the Solar System) -> I don't know how wide the solar system is, so find it difficult to understand this sentence
- Not only confusing, but wrong although it is an accurate reflection of what the reference says. I've provided a more correct reference and rewritten that sentence. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- double parentheses: (more than 25 kiloparsecs (82,000 ly) from the center)
- Globular cluster M15 may have an intermediate-mass black hole at its core. cn
- That one is discussed in several sentences in the text; I copied the reference over to the image caption. Also tweaked the caption to more clearly reflect the fact that this claim is basically debunked. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note the characteristic "knee" in the curve at magnitude 19 -> don't speak to reader
- Text tweaked. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- The origins of these stars is still unclear, but most models suggest that these stars are the result of mass transfer in multiple star systems -> update needed.
- I#ve added a much more recent reference and rewritten that sentence, although the sentiment is still the same. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 14:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Examples of core-collapsed globular clusters include M15 and M30. -> cn
- Precise velocities were obtained for nearly 15,000 stars in this cluster -> update needed
- Sometimes the GC are referred to as M15, sometimes M 15. Consistency.
- Done. I've gone with no spaces. Messier objects are almost universally abbreviated without a space, although Simbad is one of a very few exceptions. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is some dense jargon in here; I had to click out of the lead multiple times to understand the lead. Also, "While his distance estimate was in significant error (although within the same order of magnitude as the currently accepted value), it did demonstrate that the dimensions of the galaxy were much greater than had been previously thought.[c]" is not sourced; rather the footnote looks like original research without a source. That is a brief glance; I don't understand a lot of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
- What is a "stellar density"?
- Reworded to "concentration of stars". —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Spiral galaxy is not defined, and the reader is obligated to click out to know what it is.
- Added "like the Milky Way"; hopefully that provides at least some suggestion of meaning without trying to define it. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ditto for galactic halo ... the lead should be digestible to a layreader, and the layreader should not have to click out to decipher the meaning of a sentence.
- Clarified.—Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ditto for open cluster.
- Clarified that both globular and open clusters are types of star clusters. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is the "Disk of a spiral galaxy"?
- Added wikilink, and again hopefully referring to Milky Way provides a suggestion. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Redundancies in this sentence ... and were formed as part of the star formation of the parent galaxy, rather than as a separate galaxy.
- I've rewritten that whole paragraph; see next point. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- The WP:LEAD must be an overview that is digestible to readers who are not well versed in astronomy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lead was missing any discussion of the history, and the discussion of formation and significance was a bit limited. I added to both, trying to provide more context. But I'm way too expert to really tell if it's digestible. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
- Great Debate (astronomy) isn't exactly about Globular clusters, but is a focal point for many of the issues around the distances and distribution of them. This paper summarises that debate and categorises the important factors together with a precis of where Shapley was right and wrong. These could support a useful expansion of the information currently in the article: the statement that Shapley gave a distance and it was too high very much over-simplifies the history. Shapley gave a great many distances to the galactic centre, ranging from close to correct to more than double. He even came late to the idea that globular clusters had an asymmetric distribution indicating a spherical system with the sun off-centre. In 1915, he dismissed it when determining the distance to M13. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that "distance estimate" sentence and footnote c are totally standard textbook statements; I added three textbook references which say the same thing in different ways at different levels. I also incorporated the Trimble paper above to be explicit about Shapley's distance estimates. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Close without FARC -- Just solved a few more prose issues myself. I'm a bit on the fence here, but this has been open for months, and would like to draw it to a close. I'm sure there is room for further improvement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 14, 2021 (UTC)
- What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Everything above has been addressed I believe. FemkeMilene ( talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: - Do you feel like all of your comments have been satisfactorily addressed here? I intend to make a read-through myself at some point, but would like to wait until everything outstanding is addressed for that. Hog Farm Talk 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, as stated above, the lead is not an adequate summary digestible to the layreader. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- See new replies above. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Continuing ...
- why are metal rich and metal poor in quotes? See MOS:QUOTEPOV. Ditto throughout (eg, blue stragglers)
- I guess that should be italics per Wikipedia style; it's defining/referring to terms. Changed. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- review linking, blue stragglers is used in an image caption before it is linked in the next section.
- Moved the image to the section in which it's used. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- de-howevering may be useful ... However, the above-mentioned historic process of determining the age and distance to globular clusters is not as robust as first thought, since ... see See overuse of however and User:John/however. Ditto for also, in addition, etc ... User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
I picked the section on simulations for a prose check, as that is a topic I do understand ...
- subdividing what? An efficient method of mathematically simulating the N-body dynamics of a globular cluster is done by subdividing into small volumes and velocity ranges ...
- The simulation becomes more difficult when the effects of binaries and the interaction with external gravitation forces (such as from the Milky Way galaxy) must also be included. ... What is meant by " when ... must be included" ... why are they not always included, and why must they only sometimes be included?
- punctuation of this sentence? Over long periods of time this will result in a dissipation of the cluster, a process termed evaporation ... should that be an endash rather than a comma?
- Either this is a switch in tense or I am completely misunderstanding the meaning ... The ultimate fate of a globular cluster must be either to accrete stars at its core, causing its steady contraction,[119] or gradual shedding of stars from its outer layers.
I think this article could yet benefit from a closer prose review by non-content experts, although I believe we are on the road to a restored bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- The prose issues mentioned by Sandy appear to be still unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Spiderland
- Notified: Brandt Luke Zorn, WikiProject Music diff
- Issues in the lead were mentioned back in July on the talk page and seem to have gone unfixed.
- I posted the following concerns on the talk page and none were addressed. Also pinged FA editor User:Brandt Luke Zorn who did not respond despite still being active.
- Among the concerns:
- [citation needed] tag in "Background"
- [When] and [citation needed] tags in "Production".
- "Music" section is very choppy and has a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Also the last paragraph is uncited.
- "Don't Look Back Concerts" (citation 27) redirects to a hotel website.
- Genius.com (citation 91) does not appear to be reliable.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let me see what I can do. I'm cleaning up a little bit of trivial info on the background section and replacing some possibly unreliable sources with AllMusic, which is definitely a reliable source. It's slow going, especially since I don't have access to the 33 1/3 book outside of the limited preview in Google Books. Famous Hobo ( talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- These pointers have been handy for a general clean up, though overall the article remains in very good condition.
- Have removed Genious.com, and replaced Don't Look Back Concerts with a ref from Pitchfork.
- Issue in background removed.
- Looking for a source for the 1st two sentences in "Production"...the [when] is gone...its obvious that it was in 1990
- Dont agree re the "Music" section being choppy...the short paras are because each discusses an individual song. Having them like this makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for on a quick scroll through scan.
- will update when the Production bit is reffed Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- oh and the issues with the lead were addressed during last summer. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ceoil is this ready yet for others to look in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, except the statements within "McMahan and Walford began writing together for the band's next record, creating six new songs which the band practiced throughout the summer of 1990. Slint entered River North Records in August 1990 to record Spiderland. At that time there were no vocals or lyrics prepared for the album, so the band wrote them while in the studio" are as yet uncited - cough User:Brandt Luke Zorn. There is no question that they are not true, but text shift has made them out of sorts....hold on. Ceoil ( talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
(Redacted)
There is still a citation needed tag, there is an awful lot of quoting, and it might be worth looking at a better application of WP:RECEPTION to avoid a lot of Reviewer A said B, Reviewer C said D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, will give another run through over weekend. Ceoil ( talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, which does not preclude further improvements. There is still a cn tag, a lot of quoting, and prose difficulties, sample: Spiderland has also been said by Michael Alan Goldberg to have been a considerable influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)- Work on going. Working from top to bottom, so havnt gotten to the specific issues mentioned above, but am formulating an approach to dealing with music critic's opinion not mired in wiki clicche. Ceoil ( talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK struck, no move, thx Ceoil! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I see Ceoil is still at it, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK struck, no move, thx Ceoil! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Work on going. Working from top to bottom, so havnt gotten to the specific issues mentioned above, but am formulating an approach to dealing with music critic's opinion not mired in wiki clicche. Ceoil ( talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glaring issues that pop up to me right away.
- There's a formatting screw-up in the first sentence of "Background."
- Done
- There's a student newspaper citation for a long quote. I don't think writers of student newspapers are reliable.
- Removed
- "The album was virtually unnoticed by the American music press or zines.[28][28]" Why are there duplicate citations?
- fixed Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Many "dafuq" moments in the prose: "It's black-and-white cover photograph" "which as taken by Noel Saltzman," "but said mitted the band was" "The UK press music press were among the first to notice praise the album." A random "Ho" at the end of the first sentence of the reunion paragraph.
- Typos by me, now (hopefully) all sorted Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Many non-objective statements, each with only one citation, that are presented as fact but would be more accurate to be attributed: "Spiderland has sold in numbers exceptional for an obscure, defunct band who rarely performed live" and "Compared to record sales by contemporaneous alternative rock bands on major labels, sales of Spiderland would be considered modest or underwhelming."
- "Today, the album is widely considered a landmark indie rock album" "Widely"? There's only two effin citations. How is that considered widely?!
- "Spiderland has been cited as an major influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky.[64]" Nonsensical. It's only one article of a random alternative weekly newspaper assuming those bands may have been influenced by the record. Too obscure and abstract to include this.
- Most of the legacy section is a quotefarm of only a few retrospective reviews.
- trimmed Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why does ref 69 have no timestamp?
- fixed
- Futhormore, why are some single-page sources citation the Harvard way and others as full cites within footnotes? Inconsistent.
- fixed
- "| Features | Pitchfork" are not part of the titles of those Pitchfork features. I think that should be obvious.
- Many work field names are improperly presented as URLs instead of their actual work names? For example, thelist.co.uk" instead of The List.
- Another promotion from more than a decade ago that hasn't kept its FA status. The prose is broken and filled with grammar problems, the article is disorganized in some places, and the cite formatting is problematic. I'm also sensing this article is incomplete and has garnered many more retrospective perspectives not cited here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- HumanxAnthro please see the WP:FAR instructions; Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is for listing items that need to be addressed and hopefully seeing that happen. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- To note, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the album, so expecting a lot heavy duty sources to publish lengthy overviews of its legacy and [v. important] placement in alt music history. Rolling Stone' for example, yesterday published a comprehensive overview of the contemporary music scene, the album's genesis and recording, and its enduring legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, agree with everything HumanxAnthro says above. Will address and come back. Ceoil ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update; have addressed
somemost, but not all, of HumanxAnthro concerns. Ceoil ( talk) 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)- Update; 80% there on standardizing refs. Its slow and tedious; no wonder I like such depressing music. Will probably had this over to voting from next weekend. Ceoil ( talk) 22:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Update; have addressed
- Also, agree with everything HumanxAnthro says above. Will address and come back. Ceoil ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer, Ceoil, and HumanxAnthro: what remains to be done here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- A few Tom Maginnis refs to be converted to snf, and a rewriting of the reception section to give better sense of the album's slow build in popularity and cult status. Ceoil ( talk) 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest 1 more week, and then voting. Ceoil ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia, TenPoundHammer, and HumanxAnthro:: This will be closed out today, so a final look will be appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say to Keep because the problems are being addressed and quickly responded to. Even if there an issue or two we didn't catch, those could easily be resolved on talk and or done by the editors themselves. Good job to everyone! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 14:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, but can we keep it open as there is nothing like a little pressure and a deadline to keep the work going! Your points above were very good, and would like to see all addressed before am distracted by other shiny things. Ceoil ( talk) 15:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say to Keep because the problems are being addressed and quickly responded to. Even if there an issue or two we didn't catch, those could easily be resolved on talk and or done by the editors themselves. Good job to everyone! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 14:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia, TenPoundHammer, and HumanxAnthro:: This will be closed out today, so a final look will be appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest 1 more week, and then voting. Ceoil ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- To note HumanxAnthro has kindly sorted the remaining inconsistent ref formatting issues. Ceoil ( talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Hog Farm
Reading through this article, as it looks like the FAR is winding down
- "By early 1990, Rusk had agreed to pay for studio time and committed to a release their next Touch and Go" - I think something is not quite phrased here correctly
- Sorted Ceoil ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Baines 2021 does not seem to be used as a reference
- Added this afternoon; to be added to the reception sect. Ceoil ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Something seems to be off with the way that the Slint Gallery source is listed - it doesn't have a bullet point leading it, and the others all do
- This major issue now resolved...have added a "*". Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe throw in a sentence about Breadcrumb Trail (film) in the re-release section
- This on the way. The existing wiki page isn't very good, is what's delaying. Ceoil (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not seeing where the exact release date of March 27 is cited anywhere, or the exact release date for the remaster
- Both now reffed to the Touch and Go records website Ceoil ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The band formed in Louisville, Kentucky in 1986, having met as teenagers playing in the Midwestern punk scene, but soon diverged from their hardcore roots. By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structures." - not seeing this from the lead in the article
- Uh, the lead does say By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structuresCeoil ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think there may have been an understanding - it's in the lead, but is it in the main body of the article? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah...ok. Silly me. The body does say The album's guitar work is noted for its roomy sound,[13] angular rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, and irregular time signatures, though I accept this could do with expansion, especially for the many music nerds that will read the page. Ceoil ( talk) 20:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think there may have been an understanding - it's in the lead, but is it in the main body of the article? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Uh, the lead does say By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structuresCeoil ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like there's still a bit more that needs done before this should be closed. Hog Farm Talk 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- So with the lead content comment sorted out, (mainly an issue with my lack of caffiene), I think this is good to close without FARC. I don't see anything beyond a few minor quibbles left here. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sound and looks like we were both insufficiently caffinated. Ceoil ( talk) 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- So with the lead content comment sorted out, (mainly an issue with my lack of caffiene), I think this is good to close without FARC. I don't see anything beyond a few minor quibbles left here. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Close without FARC, all my issues and ones that have come up during the FAR seem to have been sufficiently addressed. Kudos to @Ceoil: for the hard work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Ten Pound Hammer. On balance, bringing the page to FAR was the right thing to do. Ceoil ( talk) 23:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where do I find this (from the lead) cited in the body? "The lyrics are sung in a narrative style, and seemingly evoke feelings of unease, social anxiety, loneliness, and despair." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- ok, good spot. I can cite it from the Tennent book...will add a section to the body shortly. Ceoil ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Has this been done? Are there any other issues outstanding? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are...I want to add a pra on singing style per above....will do today. Thanks. 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: - Has this been done? Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are...I want to add a pra on singing style per above....will do today. Thanks. 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Has this been done? Are there any other issues outstanding? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- ok, good spot. I can cite it from the Tennent book...will add a section to the body shortly. Ceoil ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Anything still outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Having been following this FAR, it looks like the comment by Sandy above about the singing style statement in the lead still needs addressed. At this point, it may just be best to remove that sentence until things get added back to the article, since this FAR has been open for close to four months. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I believe Sandy's concerns are now met following this series of edits. Again thanks for patience; hoping this can be closed shortly. Apologies, as frankly this went on a month later than it should have. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia - Do you feel like your concerns here have been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I believe Sandy's concerns are now met following this series of edits. Again thanks for patience; hoping this can be closed shortly. Apologies, as frankly this went on a month later than it should have. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Having been following this FAR, it looks like the comment by Sandy above about the singing style statement in the lead still needs addressed. At this point, it may just be best to remove that sentence until things get added back to the article, since this FAR has been open for close to four months. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates
McDonald's Cycle Center
- Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Cycling, WikiProject Architecture, 2021-03-28
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are when? tags from 2019 that need to be resolved. There's also WP:PROMO language, some of which I identified in the notice on the article's talk page. No edits have been made to the article since I posted my concerns in late-March. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC no fixes. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include style and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Report of 1800
- Notified: Christopher Parham, WikiProject Virginia, WikiProject Freedom of Speech, WikiProject Law, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, Diff of talk page notice 2021-03-05
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails to meet criterion 1c, sourcing. Large chunks of text are lacking any citations whatsoever, while many others are cited only to dated and/or primary sources. While this article might have met our criteria in 2007, it seems like it would require a great deal of work to bring it up to our present standards. Since there have been no improvements since Hog Farm gave notice over two months ago, it would appear that reconsidering the article's status is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC no ongoing improvements (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - The only human edit since 2020 is CN tagging, and all of the human edits post 2016 seem to be gnoming. There's significant needed here that's not happening. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Transit of Venus
- Notified: Anthony, WP Solar System, WP Astronomy, talk page notice 2021-02-05
Review section
This 2004 Featured article has not been maintained to current standards, and there has been no input since the notice in February 2021. In addition to issues noticed on 2021-02-05, there is considerably poor layout with MOS:SANDWICHing, large amounts of uncited text, and a prose tuneup is needed. There are no currently active editors in the article page stats; like most of the astronomy suite of FAs, this one appears to be untended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC – refs are seriously lacking across large swaths of text; image placement needs work; prose needs to be reworked in places. There haven't been any substantive edits in months, which suggests that there's no one willing to fix these considerable issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - In addition, will also suggest that the section for the 1761 and 1769 transits may need attention from a weighting perspective, as even what appear to be more minor observation groups are described in detail there, with much less detail going to other transits. Also, significant image work is needed - there's an image of an ancient clay tablet that isn't mentioned in the article at all. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include organization, prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Fourth International
- Notified: Warofdreams, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Politics, diff for talk page notification 2021-01-21
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are issues with FA criteria. As noted back in January the article heavily relies on primary and affiliated sources, lacks citations in places, and does not fully utilize independent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Agree with Buidhe here. There's a lot of sourcing improvement and overhaul needed. Most of the sources are either primary or affiliated. This needs a good bit of work. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC – serious sourcing issues; no sign of improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Leonhard Euler
- Notified: Borisblue, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Education, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Systems, WikiProject Music theory, diff for talk page notification April 4
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006 and hasn't been evaluated since. Hog Farm notes on the talk page that "There's a good bit of uncited text, and the length of the further reading compared to the number of sources used has me concerned about "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"." (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle: I see you've added some citations; are you able and willing to address the concerns raised above? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Well the article is by far better expanded than when he was nominated in 2006. I've noticed some uncertainties, which I try to address further on, but not necessarily to keep an FA. I just read the FA criteria a minute ago. I guess in prose the article needs some copy edit. The sources available in the article are I guess rather good. Specially on the bio in St. Petersburgh. But on math, I don't know how well they are used. I am not a math formula specialist, (yet, who knows?). Maybe also ping an editor on mathematics?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC Despite efforts there are no improvements ongoing, sourcing issues (uncited text, etc.) remain. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Oriel College, Oxford
- Notified: TSventon, Ravenpuff, Wiki alf, WP Higher ed, WP Oxford, WP Middle Ages, 2021-01-18 talk page notification
Review section
This is a 2007 featured article that has not been maintained to FA standards. Some updates were done after the January talk page notification, but the article still has considerable maintenance tags and relies heavily on primary sources. There are bare URLs, inconsistent citations, page numbers needed, citation needed tags, spaced endashes, and considering the overall deterioration in the article, a top-to-bottom rewrite and review is probably in order for datedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Lots of work needed per nom; minimal engagement since FAR opened. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC Not much has been addressed. ~ HAL333 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC lots of work needed and little engagement. Link20XX (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete- much work needed and not much happening. Hog Farm Talk 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)- Well, Hog Farm, I can't help but think that deletion might be just a bit of an overreaction. (It did give me a good laugh.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - I must've had AFD on the mind. Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Hog Farm, I can't help but think that deletion might be just a bit of an overreaction. (It did give me a good laugh.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delist – little progress toward resolving the boatload of issues pointed out in the nom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina
- Notified: Titoxd, Tarret, Derek.cashman, WP Tropical cyclones, WP Weather noticed April 16
Review section
Nominating this one, as it is one of the older FAs on the WP:URFA/2020 list that has not been checked yet. This one currently fails WP:FACR #1c by a pretty large margin - there is a vast quantity of scholarly literature about Katrina, yet all but one sentence of the body of this article is sourced solely to the National Hurricane Center. Additional scholarly sources need worked into this article for it to meet FACR #`1c. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Nothing happening and currently fails FACR #1c by a large bit. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist, as noted in nomination, very far from a representative survey of literature. CMD (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - severe issues with WP:FACR #1c identified in April, with no engagement or improvement. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Atomic line filter
- Notified: nominator long retired,, WP Physics, March 7 talk page notification
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks citations in places, and is likely outdated with sources typically pre-2005, missing for instance this 2020 review. First sentence seems unfinished. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Significant issues present; no human edits since mid 2020. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I have notified the EE Wikiproject, as filters like this may be of interest to them as well. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist -- nothing happened. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - no engagement whatsoever. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Flag of Portugal
- Notified: Parutakupiu, Portugal, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, diff for talk page notification May 1
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has a big issue with unsourced content. After removing one patently unreliable source there are now over 20 cn tags, and also unsourced content that's not marked. Hog Farm brought up these issues on talk 2 weeks ago but did not receive a response so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC While there have been a few edits, but the significant work still has to start. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - a little done, but it's largely tapered off and still a lot to do. Also concerned about the reliability of some of the still-present sources, such as the Portugese source "Acção Monárquica Tradicionalista" and I have some doubts about the wargaming site. This needs a lot of sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist, sourcing issues, both in lack of sources and in quality of sources, remain, and would take quite a bit of work to fix. CMD (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - lots of missing citations, and many of the sources seem to be (per Hog Farm) of questionable reliability. Since work on the article seems to have ceased, I have to support removing the star. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist, I attempted to improve the article, but quite frankly from my attempt to find sources I believe that even finding reliable sources for the currently unreferenced information would require knowledge of Portuguese at the very least. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - it looks like the only way this is going to be saveable if is someone who speaks Portuguese comes in and finds/assesses a large number of Portuguese sources, and there's no indication that that event is going to be coming anytime soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Pierre Rossier
- Notified: Pinkville, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject China, WikiProject Photography, WikiProject Biography,WikiProject Switzerland, 2021-03-26 talk page notification
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because recent scholarship has been found and needs to be assessed and added to the article (as listed on talk page), there are extensive notes in the references, making it difficult to verify the information, and there are uncited sentences in the "Later years" and "Legacy" sections. Z1720 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
On hold: Pinkville is working on the article. See article talk page for details. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not seeing that the FAR has been placed on hold by the Coords (that is, temporarily removed from the page for extenuating circumstances, which is a different thing than work ongoing). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if my bold "on hold" above was confusing, I was suggesting that the article should be placed on hold because of the messages Pinkville and I exchanged on the article's talk page. Z1720 ( talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinkville there was no feedback between the March 26 talk page notification and the May 8 FAR; what are your thoughts on the time you will need to make the necessary adjustments? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if my bold "on hold" above was confusing, I was suggesting that the article should be placed on hold because of the messages Pinkville and I exchanged on the article's talk page. Z1720 ( talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that Pinkville has been inactive for the past two weeks, and there have been no edits to the article by others in that time. Are there plans for additional work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - hopefully it'll be improved / saved there. Entire legacy section still unsourced. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Paul Stastny
- Notified: Maxim, Serte, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject Ice Hockey, Noticed 2021-03-14
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Career" section needs to be summarized (specifically the Colorado Avalanche section), the "Style of play" section does not cite sources published post-2007, and there are some statements that need citations. Edits have not been made to the article since it was noticed. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with this re-review and will be working to improve it. Not only does the Avalanche section need work but his ~4 season St. Louis Blues career is discussed in one paragraph! It definitely needs a lot of work on the more recent section but I believe I have added sources for everything. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to acknowledge that I've seen this FAR. I don't have a particularly strong motivation or interest to work in the topic area. That said, I'm very glad to see that HickoryOughtShirt?4 has taken an interest in the article. Maxim(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've worked on a few FAs recently. This is a good article but not quite up to FA standards at the moment. There are a number of bare references and CS1 maintenance errors which I'm happy to sort out for you. There's one permanently dead link. Those are the things I've noticed on first pass through but I'll have a closer look today, make a few edits, and post my comments here. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've made a few improvements to the article. There are some MOS:NUMBER and MOS:DUPLINK errors that I can fix, as well as CS1 parameter fixes. In the meantime, please see my comments on Talk page. Thanks, Rodney Baggins ( talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've worked on a few FAs recently. This is a good article but not quite up to FA standards at the moment. There are a number of bare references and CS1 maintenance errors which I'm happy to sort out for you. There's one permanently dead link. Those are the things I've noticed on first pass through but I'll have a closer look today, make a few edits, and post my comments here. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to acknowledge that I've seen this FAR. I don't have a particularly strong motivation or interest to work in the topic area. That said, I'm very glad to see that HickoryOughtShirt?4 has taken an interest in the article. Maxim(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, for my part, I'm a lot happier with it now and would consider it to be back up to FA standard. I might do a bit more copyediting in the Avalanche section but nothing drastic. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 18:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article has seen drastic improvements by multiple editors. I think the Colorado Avalanche section could use another trim and copyedit. The Style and play section still needs to be updated. Perhaps there is commentary on his playstyle in news reports when he was traded or signed with a new team, as reports might comment on why the team traded him away or what skills and technique he will bring to the new club. Please ping me when improvements are finished and I will give a copyedit. Z1720 ( talk) 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodney Baggins and Z1720: Have these last issues been sorted out? Are we at a point now where we'd be looking to close? Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Style of play" section has not been updated yet and the Colorado Avalanche section still needs a trim. There have been no edits to the article since your last update request. Z1720 ( talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodney Baggins and Z1720: Have these last issues been sorted out? Are we at a point now where we'd be looking to close? Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC work on this article has definitely stalled for most of the last month. No substantive edits since 30 April or earlier. (t · c) buidhe 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Chetwynd, British Columbia
- Notified: KenWalker, Maclean25, WP Cities, WP British Columbia, WP Canada, WP Canadian communities, 2020-10-25 When closing, note for recordkeeping purposes, this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.
Review section
This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There is uncited text, MOS:CURRENT issues, and portions that need to be updated-- a couple of samples only:
- It has recently been renovated and now contains a rock climbing wall, indoor walking track and fitness center.[citation needed] Smart Growth BC ranked the town as one of BC's most livable municipalities in 2004, due mainly to its large park spaces.
- The current mayor, Allen Courtoreille, was first elected in 2018. He was preceded by Merlin Nichol (2011-2018) and Evan Saugstad (2003-2011). The city funds a volunteer fire department, which services the town and nearby rural communities. It also maintains the sewer, water, local road, sidewalk, street lighting, animal control, building inspection, park, and recreation services.
Citations need to be cleaned up and standardized for missing information and date consistency. If someone will take on improvements, this should not be hard to restore, but the deficiencies have stood in spite of a notice last October. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- As the principal author, I will strive to make worthwhile edits but I am not seeking to retain FA-status. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Maclean25 and Mattximus: thanks for the considerable work. [51] Is this ready for a fresh look, or is there more to come? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the demographics section is not comprehensive enough to be at featured article standard. There should be a few sentences on language/ethnic groups, basic demographic things. Also I checked the first source but it failed to provide the number quoted in the sentence. The second sentence is unsourced and I cannot find that reference using google. It's certainly not horrible but that section does need a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK I rewrote the second paragraph and added information which I now think is comprehensive enough for a featured article (I hope the wording is correct). I still have the two outstanding sourcing issues from the first paragraph that I cannot solve, but now the content of that section is essentially complete. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the demographics section is not comprehensive enough to be at featured article standard. There should be a few sentences on language/ethnic groups, basic demographic things. Also I checked the first source but it failed to provide the number quoted in the sentence. The second sentence is unsourced and I cannot find that reference using google. It's certainly not horrible but that section does need a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Maclean25 and Mattximus: thanks for the considerable work. [51] Is this ready for a fresh look, or is there more to come? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comments for HumanxAnthro
- Honestly, while I will take Sandy's word that this article may need improvements, I don't it's quite in the red zone and I think it's held up extremely well for a 2007 FA. There are issues to make about the cite formatting (inconsistent date formats and whether sources like Statistics Canada have their names italicized or not), but it mostly looks put-together, plus I only noticed one uncited statement: "The area's native tree species include deciduous balsam poplar and coniferous spruce and pine. Many fur-bearing animals—deer, moose, elk, beaver, and bear—comprise the region's mammalian wildlife. Three creeks run south through town. Windrem Creek—which flows down from Ol' Baldy Mountain—and Widmark Creek both flow into Centurion Creek, which itself drains south into the Pine River." Plus, all the sources used appear to be reliable, with government census data and newspaper articles and the like. The prose also looks well-organized and easy to understand, so if the MOS:CURRENT issues and sourcing is fixed, I think it's got a strong chance of being an FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- This article was compiled in a time when FAC's expectations for citations were more closely aligned with Wikipedia:When to cite so everything should be in the references section but only cited when necessary. To HumanxAnthro's question, the list of animals all comes from the biogeoclimatic references earlier in the paragraph (except for the names of the watercourses which can be easily found on maps). I have made some edits to update and replace some refs, use cites to better explain where content is coming from, and generally provide some content updates. City articles tend to suffer from demands for recentism (understandable for an FA) so I have also tried to future-proof it better. For future editors, to improve this article better use of its local newspaper, the Chetwynd Echo, should be made but its articles are not currently in a searchable database. Similarly, I understand its history book, History Book Saga of Little Prairie-Chetwynd, was updated in 2012. I am okay with it moving to FARC and being de-listed. It was among WP's best city-articles during its day but there are better ones now and I am only going to update it less frequently as the years go by. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- What to do? The article has been cleaned up, but Maclean25 indicates they don't plan to keep up going forward. We can't delist an article because of what might happen going forward :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, we can't delist an article because an editor says they won't update it. Hopefully other editors will come along to update various section. As for the article right now, I think the History section could do with a little trim, while also adding a line or two about the municipality post-2004. Z1720 ( talk) 02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. Identify what issues are present now and those can get addressed now; if this needs to come back again later, so be it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, we can't delist an article because an editor says they won't update it. Hopefully other editors will come along to update various section. As for the article right now, I think the History section could do with a little trim, while also adding a line or two about the municipality post-2004. Z1720 ( talk) 02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HF
- I think this is looking like something that can probably be kept, so I'll give it a read-through
- Should we have an as of in the lead for the MLA representation? Might be useful, although I reckon those are also things that get fairly well updated.
- "Little Prairie was homesteaded by Alexander and Lillan Windrem in 1930 and cleared the land by 1935 for hay, oats and gardens" - Should this be "who cleared the land"?
- CN in the wildlife and climate section
- Has anyone checked the climate table to see if it needs updated? I see that the source accessdate is from 2005
- Are there any education statistics more recent than the early 2000s?
- A dead link or two. Tried to fix with IAbot, but it didn't get those. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
So there's still a bit of work to do, but should be fixable. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Hog Farm, that if these straggling issues can be cleared up, this should be in Keep territory, and we can only cross our fingers and hope the article will be maintained so we won't be right back here in a few years. User:Maclean25 are you able to address Hog Farm's list? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's always a little bit more to edit with a dynamic subject, such as a city article. Best to move it to FARC based on the notes above. To answer one of Hog Farm's questions, the climate table was updated in 2013 and the new data has not been released yet (Environment Canada updates that data every 10 years) so that is still current. That climate table was added by another editor and I'm glad it is there to make use of the Environment Canada weather station at the Chetwynd Airport. Thanks. maclean ( talk) 01:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, it is quite a pity that we should have to defeature this article because it is not being updated. I attempted to address the text that is uncited in "Geography and climate" myself, dealing with local trees, wildlife, and creeks. The first thing I found was an indication that citing wildlife would be harder than I thought:
- https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/caribou-wolves-and-the-battle-tearing-apart-northeastern-b-c/
If someone can get hold of a local newspaper or another source to cite that information, this article should be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I consider Macleans a high-quality source (it is a very reputable Canadian magazine) so I think you can use this source to cite things in the article. I will look for local newspapers later. Z1720 ( talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Results of local news source search: Info on caribou herds near Chetwynd in 2020: [52]
[53]. These reports also mention moose and wolves, and a couple of other animals in passing. It's hard to find sources on the biodiversity because reports mention Chetwynd as part of an area that stretches to Dawson Creek, and doesn't specifically state if these animals or plants exist in or near Chetwynd. A search for balsam poplar produced 0 hits. Spruce's search results were polluted with news stories of a spruce beetle infestation a couple of years ago, and I'm not sure if it involved the city (the news reports mention inspections of Chetwynd but not the results of the inspections.) Pine is next to impossible because streets, neighbourhoods, and other geographical features are named "Pine" so search results were polluted. I couldn't find sources that mention Chetwynd and the creeks. I have never edited a city/geography FA so I am hesitant to add/change info. If others can't read the source, I can add info with a little guidance on what should be included in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and add the info myself. Unfortunately, I could only verify three animals and one pine beetle infestation with the sources I found. I removed the info concerning the trees and the creeks; if you find sources for them, please add them back in. SandyGeorgia is there anything else that needs work? If not, I can do a copyedit/review of the whole article's prose. Z1720 ( talk) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Results of local news source search: Info on caribou herds near Chetwynd in 2020: [52]
[53]. These reports also mention moose and wolves, and a couple of other animals in passing. It's hard to find sources on the biodiversity because reports mention Chetwynd as part of an area that stretches to Dawson Creek, and doesn't specifically state if these animals or plants exist in or near Chetwynd. A search for balsam poplar produced 0 hits. Spruce's search results were polluted with news stories of a spruce beetle infestation a couple of years ago, and I'm not sure if it involved the city (the news reports mention inspections of Chetwynd but not the results of the inspections.) Pine is next to impossible because streets, neighbourhoods, and other geographical features are named "Pine" so search results were polluted. I couldn't find sources that mention Chetwynd and the creeks. I have never edited a city/geography FA so I am hesitant to add/change info. If others can't read the source, I can add info with a little guidance on what should be included in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Education section still needs significant work, and the Economy section may need a bit of an update (most recent stuff from around 2015). Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)
- Notified: Nominator (as well as the most prominent contributor to this article by many, many edits) has been inactive since October 2017, the only other users with the most edits to this page have only made minor edits, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Horror, 2021-03-29
Review section
I am nominating this article for featured article review because it is another late 2000s FA promotion nominated by an inactive user that has not been checked. An attempt to discuss and address the issues on the talk page (which I started a month ago) garnered no responses. This article is C-class at best and the amount of major issues are endless. It has no representation from academic literature (of which this topic has plenty), there are un-cited statements, there are sources Nikkimaria or Hog Farm would question in an instant (Teako170.com, Box Office Story, The Astounding B Monster, Mondo Digital) and flat out would not allow (Cinebeats is a self-published blog), the prose is overly dependent quotes, reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, the plot section is not only 42 words over WP:FILMPLOT's 700-word limit but also is a bloated sequence of events instead of a concise summary, there are bare URLs for references 2 and 3, and (perhaps the biggest issue with this article) it is extremely non-comprehensive for an article about a film by the king of horror himself. I'd love to see improvements on this, but I am also afraid that is too far away from having the gold star; I don't think a simple discussion would save it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - There are also issues with overreliance on direct quotes in some sections, IMO, and several citations are missing page numbers. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - significant progress, no significant engagement. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC Lots of short paragraphs that need to be merged, plot section needs a trim and an overreliance on quotes in the "Response" section, as mentioned above. No engagement since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - significant issues, minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
William Tecumseh Sherman
- Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11
Review section
This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.
- Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
- Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
- The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances
While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.
- I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.
- I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.
- I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good ( unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 ( talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 ( talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 ( talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Ecclesiastical heraldry
- Notified: Gimmetrow, WP Heraldry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, 2020-12-27
Review section
This August 2006 promotion has not been reviewed since and has significant amounts of uncited text. While some work occurred in mid-December, things have stalled since then, and it will take some heavy work finding the exact references used and making sure things haven't crept in. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC there's still a lot of uncited text, and it's possible that edits in March added more uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - no engagement, issues remain. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist: unsourced paragraphs and statements, including words to watch. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist still not engagement, issues need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I quite agree there has been no engagement... from the FAR "reviewers". Kay asserted that paragraphs are unsourced. I looked at the article and that appears to me to fail verification. Kay also asserted there are "words to watch", with no examples of anything problematic. I could touch it up but I see little reason to since nobody has provided a single actionable item in the 4+ months since the article talk page "notice" Gimmetrow 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Gimmetrow thanks for responding above. Sometimes editors wait until someone says, "I will fix it" before giving a detailed review, because they are time-consuming and its disheartening when a detailed, time-consuming review is ignored. I'm happy to give some detailed, actionable items below. Although I will not be engaged in the initial cleanup of the article, since I am not knowledgeable in this topic area, I am happy to review the article later as a non-expert to improve the prose and point out areas that are unclear. Some actionable items to improve the article are:
- 1) At a minimum, I expect every FA article to have a citation at the end of each paragraph. For some paragraphs, the last sentence does not have a footnote. Is this information verified by a source? If so, it should be cited. If not, it should be removed. If it would help, I can add citation needed tags to the article.
- 2) There doesn't appear to be any post-2007 sources. This makes sense because that's when the article was promoted to FA status. Is there any updated scholarly material we can cite? Perhaps there is some additional information we should add to the history section.
- Not quite an expert on ecclesiastical heraldry, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this stuff is based on very old traditions and doesn't change much. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm OK with someone doing a search and determining that there aren't high-quality, new sources on this topic. I think a search is still useful to ensure the article is updated if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- 3) There is some MOS:SANDWICH happening in the article. Are all the pictures necessary? Maybe some of them should be removed.
- Once these are addressed, please ping me and I will conduct another review. Thanks for help bringing this article back to FA standards. Z1720 ( talk) 14:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - It looks like Gimmetrow has addressed the image layout issues, but the sourcing comments in the discussion above are still at an impasse. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm probably still at delist here. There's still a good bit of uncited text that isn't quite WP:WTC exempted, and there hasn't really been much work going on here for about three weeks. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still a delist, too. A quick skim shows lots of uncited text and there hasn't been much editing since May 7. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm now at strong delist. There's been no engagement at all, just a bit of bad-mouthing of reviewers. Gimmetrow basically calls me a liar for claiming that there are unsourced paragraphs. There are obviously unsourced paragraphs: e.g. first paragraph of the 'Personal design' section, second paragraph of the 'Ecclesiastical hat' section, third paragraph of the 'Mantle' section. Unsourced words to watch include "often" and "traditionally", which are explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but there are many, many other unsourced claims and words that require attribution, including "reduced to only their shields", "symbolize mortality", "typically", "entirely", "usually", "intended", "same principle", "entire", "normally", "rather than", "never", "because", "notable", "ornate", "rare", "appropriately", and so on. DrKay (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- They are "words to watch", not "words to avoid". Just about any "rule" in heraldry has exceptions, so the literature itself uses "often", "typically", "traditionally" and "normally". I put a footnote on one use of "often" but I'm not sure it's worthwhile to footnote every one of these, and to remove these qualifiers would usually result in incorrect statements. Gimmetrow 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Paul Kagame
- Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.
One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - whoah Buidhe, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. - Indy beetle ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. ( t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. ( t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, Buidhe. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. ( t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. ( t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. - Indy beetle ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- On hold to allow for more time for discussion at talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
- Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
- In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
- Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
- Obviously I'll be keen to hear Buidhe's views on what the next steps should be as well. — Amakuru ( talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
- @Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do:
Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether?
When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade.
Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)
Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)
Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why:
As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest"
With regards to vote-rigging he states the following:
Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control.
In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections [54](you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states:
Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power.
There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994"[55] by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper
Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including [56][57][58] (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) `
- Amakuru in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC. Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ack Amakuru, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:
- There are five uses of subsequently, almost always redundant (and they are here). Looking at one sample:
- Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
- left ... leaving ... vary the wording ...
- "subsequently" arrested ... could not have been arrested previously
- Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
Concern about representation of sources:
- Text says: Since the end of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Rwanda has enjoyed a close relationship with the English speaking world, in particular the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).
- The 2012 source mentions Clinton, saying that aid will be cut ... suggesting that large parts of this article may still be outdated or misrepresenting info based on current or broader sources (Clinton is not the US).
- as well as supporting development projects.
- Based on a primary source only, with no secondary source given. [59]
My concern is that wherever I look, I can find issues like this, so unless a top-to-bottom rewrite is undertaken, I think we are long past the time when we should proceed to FARC. Keeping an article of this nature updated requires constant vigilance, which this article does not seem to have had. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: - the point about the US is covered in the last paragraph of that section, detailing how they initially cut aid around 2012-13, but have subsequently revived it and remain close as of recently. And no problem with a primary source on a point of fact. But anyway, on the wider point, I'm obviously glad that this FAR has pushed me into updating this article, because I completely agree with the original assessment from l;ast year that it needed some updating based on later developments and the shift in scholarly POV. But I've done that, and I completely disagree that the idea that we now have to throw the whole thing away and start again. But anyway, so be it. I don't disagree that the prose could be polished in places and a few more updates made, but personally I'm satisfied that this article is a good and fair representation of this BLP and that's of more importance than whether it has a shiny gold star at the top or not. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the FAR process has resulted in considerable improvement to the article, which is great. However, if this article came up at FAC I would definitely oppose it on the basis that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article still has an overreliance on press articles compared to scholarship, which comes at the cost of privileging surface-level events to deeper analysis and understanding of underlying factors. I would also oppose on the lack of summary style and excessive detail in places. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist The article needs a thorough review of its prose to summarise and WP:SPINOUT longer sections. Discussion of Kagame's policies seems to be mixed with the Presidential section and should be given their own section. Amakuru had great edits on the article in April, but it still needs more work to bring it to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: obviously it's clear that this article no longer has the support of the community as an FA, so I won't quibble on that point, but I'm curious why you think policies don't belong in the section on his presidency? Per other FAs such as Barack Obama, Richard Nixon etc, policies are generally included within that section in an article. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
St Kilda, Scotland
- Notified: Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography [60]
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are unsourced statements, poor quality sources, repetition of sources when cite bundling should be used, missing urls, bare urls, missing titles, dead links, stubby paragraphs that should be merged, disconnected lists of trivia in the final sub-section, and the lead is in breach of the Manual of Style. Talk page notice a month ago[61] was ignored. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DrKay: Apologies for not seeing the St K. talk page. I am relatively inactive these days but do drop by my talk page a couple of times a month so thanks for letting me know there. This was my first FA and unlike the last review the topic is much less likely to need ten years of new information. I very much doubt that many of the other early contributors will drop by here so I will do what I can to fix things. The main issue for me is timing - I may be a bit slow to respond and the weekends are generally the only times I can put any serious effort in. BenMacDui 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you will dig in, Ben MacDui; please ping me as you progress if there is some way I can be helpful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have made a start but oh dear - I had hoped that going through and fixing the obviously deficient refs might be a way to start but so much extra information has been added - some in in appropriate sections - that I fear this is going to be a long haul. "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can mangle". Splendid. BenMacDui 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Time is always allowed at FAR: just keep us posted, and let me know if I can help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have made a start but oh dear - I had hoped that going through and fixing the obviously deficient refs might be a way to start but so much extra information has been added - some in in appropriate sections - that I fear this is going to be a long haul. "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can mangle". Splendid. BenMacDui 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you will dig in, Ben MacDui; please ping me as you progress if there is some way I can be helpful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DrKay: Apologies for not seeing the St K. talk page. I am relatively inactive these days but do drop by my talk page a couple of times a month so thanks for letting me know there. This was my first FA and unlike the last review the topic is much less likely to need ten years of new information. I very much doubt that many of the other early contributors will drop by here so I will do what I can to fix things. The main issue for me is timing - I may be a bit slow to respond and the weekends are generally the only times I can put any serious effort in. BenMacDui 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Already, certain problems jump out of the screen to me, and I haven't even read the full thing
- Many incomplete citations, particularly those that are just a title and link
- "It has been known for some time" This is too vague and informal
- "The first written record of St Kilda may date from 1202" In which researcher's viewpoint? This isn't a sentence that defines a fact, "may" implies the date isn't definitely known and has to depend on the research of authorities in a field to pinpoint this. They need attribution
- Looking at the other parts of this article, there are attribution problems like this, especially in the "Toponym" section; it might've come from this, it might've come from that, it might've started from here, and similar statements. These are not facts, and each hypothesis gets one to two citations, meaning they're liking not widespread enough to be taken as a fact we should accept as the prose in its current condition wants us to.
- "At 670 hectares (1,700 acres) in extent, Hirta is the largest island in the group" Wait, by group do you mean St. Kilda? Who thinks of group as synonymous of archipelago? Is this just my ignorance in geography terminology? Can someone let me know?... Please?
- The final half of "Evacuation and aftermath" is just a set of short paragraphs about random topics. I'm sure they're essential to the article, but man is this not a cohesive structure.
- Why does "Tourism" gets its own section independent of history, yet info on the health care system, military equipment, and a history of native citizens are placed clunkily in a non-cohesive history section.
- There's a fricking citation needed tag in "Other Islands."
- "Declining population" Oh man, the problems with... a- ju- just the problems, I mean, gosh, this hurts
- "In 1764 (according to the Census),[86] there were 90 St Kindans, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851." The problem with this sentence is so obvious. There's no consistent flow to this. In fact, I'll fix it right now: "According to Census reports, there were 90 St. Kindans in 1764, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851."
- This is just an indiscriminate list of numbers per year with no analysis to make it interesting or engaging
- I think there are other parts of this article where this short-ass section could be merged, such during the history section there are reasons attributed to the declining population of the island
- To put it simply, another outdated promotion from more than 10 years ago that doesn't deserve its FA status, kind of like two other articles I've nominated for review a film with the "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" meme and lots of blood and gore, and a game starring a thicc Mario where, if you're an alpha speedrunner, you could BLJ up the stairs. The original FA nominator still seems to be active, so I'm interested to hear from him. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is an inappropriate tone for FAR. Please dial it back, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it came off that way, I apologize, but what part of the tone was inappropriate? Looks like a typical FAR to me. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I will summarize later on your talk, but in short, there is nothing typical about your tone on these FARs, and it is unacceptable; I hope it stops. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it came off that way, I apologize, but what part of the tone was inappropriate? Looks like a typical FAR to me. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is an inappropriate tone for FAR. Please dial it back, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC The last edit to the article was March 28. After reviewing the article, I have some concerns including a bloated History section, no information about the history of the island from 1957-2009, many small paragraphs throughout the article that need to be merged or deleted, and a large "Further reading" section that should be evaluated for their inclusion as sources in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ben MacDui, could we get a status update? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Apologies - real world very busy, will aim to have another look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delist issues have not been addressed, no significant edits since its move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I spent a bit of time on this essentially trying to figure out the simplest way to address the many issues. It is I think too complex to attempt to edit the existing article directly. I now have a version in a sandbox that I am hoping to get up-to-speed this week. Ben MacDui 14:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a start made. Ben MacDui 17:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The main revisions are that the article now more closely follows the structure of the original FA, but with (I hope) most of the fixes and post-hoc technical changes retained along with many of the additional material contributions. There is less detail about the evacuation and the lives of the islanders after this time, which struck me as being more appropriate for a book on the topic than an encyclopedia article, although it would be easy enough to add them back in if anyone feels strongly. I don't see any glaring ref errors and the notes also seem ok. Further suggestions welcome of course. Ben MacDui 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I spent a bit of time on this essentially trying to figure out the simplest way to address the many issues. It is I think too complex to attempt to edit the existing article directly. I now have a version in a sandbox that I am hoping to get up-to-speed this week. Ben MacDui 14:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720, have the subsequent edits addressed your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The edits have improved the article, but concerns still remain. I skimmed through the article and some of my concerns include a lede that needs to be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs, the history section is not in chronological order and includes sections that should be moved to other parts of the article (like "Way of life" or "Religion") and there are some cite errors. If someone is working on the article, I am happy to do a readthrough and copyedit once the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delist. Looking in detail at the lead only, there are structural and prose problems. There's repetition (e.g "island's evacuation in 1930" and "evacuated from Hirta, the only inhabited island, in 1930"; "stone structure known as cleitean" and "A cleit is a stone storage hut"), contradiction (e.g. "Virtually all of the population lived on Hirta" and "Hirta, the only inhabited island"), unnecessary detail not found in the article body (e.g. "The population was 112 in 1851. According to the 1861 census, there were 71 inhabitants at that time"), an unnecessary tautology/redundancy ("at that time") and related material separated from each other and spread over multiple paragraphs (e.g. "a variety of conservation workers, volunteers and scientists spend time there in the summer months" in one paragraph and "volunteers work on the islands in the summer to restore the many ruined buildings" in another). DrKay (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DrKay: would this version of the lead from 2011 (closest to when it was promoted to featured topic status - be sensible to go back to and use a base to build from? Not so much changes on St Kilda. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Chinua Achebe
- Notified: Scartol, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nigeria, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Igbo, 2021-02-16
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are citation concerns from May 2020, an overreliance of the Ezenwa-Ohaeto source and bloated sections like "Influence and legacy" and "Masculinity and femininity". Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC No engagement, 23 cn tags. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - No significant engagement, significant work needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues in the review section focus on sourcing and length. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - lots of work needed, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - per above -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait - The issues above are being dramatized, this article is pretty close to FA standard. I want to get around to adding some refs to missing places and fix up other issues. I would ask that the coords hold on this. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Once the article is fixed up, please ping me and I will conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, Aza24.. I just don't have time for Wikipedia these days but I would hate to see this article get delisted. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to help, Achebe is truly a gem. Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here, Aza24? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I've dealt with all the cn tags (that were there when I got there—there appears to be an IP addressing some) except two thus far. I will note that I found it rather concerning that almost all of the tags were faulty ones; placed on lines that were in fact sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph (I have, regardless, added additional/duplicate citations for these). I will also note that I checked Achebe's Oxford Bibliography entry and it seems that Ezenwa-Ohaeto is currently the most thorough source on his biography—and (because of this) one can see that almost no Ezenwa-Ohaeto refs are used in the style section. Additionally, the supposed "length" issue commented below the FARC section has not been brought up by a single editor (??). It is somewhat concerning that three experienced editors were so quick to vote "delist", and equally so that none of the issues were properly evaluated. I still have some more work to do, the holdup was due to me reading a few chapters on Achebe... Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: I placed many of the cn tags that you fixed. When I reviewed the article, the prose contained many one-sentence paragraphs that were uncited, so I tagged them. Another editor merged the paragraphs together but kept the cn tags as the reference at the end of the new paragraph might not verify the information that was merged together. I am happy that most of the cn issues have been addressed. I don't mind removing duplicate references (and I actually prefer this, as footnotes distract the reader.) The length issues concern some sections that are very large, including the "Masculinity and femininity" section (especially the second paragraph) and the "Influence and legacy" sections. I recommend that someone familiar with this person review the article to try to more effectively summarise the article in the bloated parts. I am happy to re-review and copyedit once these are complete. Z1720 ( talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk·contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still working Casliber. I'm yet to finish cleaning the life section yet, and have just gotten (like the day before yesterday) access to some sources through resource request, to hopefully diversify the citations in the biography. I know you guys are trying to keep the process moving, but I only really started editing on May 2nd (though I briefly cleaned up some things on April 23rd), so any lenience—if possible—would be much appreciated. Aza24 ( talk) 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- More than happy to cut plenty of slack timewise if articles are being worked on. So take your time, there is no mad rush. We've kept things open for months if it looks like things are heading in the right direction Cas Liber ( talk·contribs) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still working Casliber. I'm yet to finish cleaning the life section yet, and have just gotten (like the day before yesterday) access to some sources through resource request, to hopefully diversify the citations in the biography. I know you guys are trying to keep the process moving, but I only really started editing on May 2nd (though I briefly cleaned up some things on April 23rd), so any lenience—if possible—would be much appreciated. Aza24 ( talk) 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk·contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
British Empire
Coordinator comments
Commentary here seems to have reached an impasse and there have been few recent substantive edits to the article. Summarizing where things are at with regards to the FA criteria:
- Well-written.
- Sandy raised some examples of prose tightening; have these all been addressed?
- Femke Nijsse raised concerns around reading level and comprehensibility; where are we at with that?
- Comprehensiveness, research, neutrality. Obviously these are the point of greatest contention in this review.
- Some editors have concerns that the article neglects areas other than history and military - eg economics. What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic? What approach is being used here to summarize subtopics?
- Femke raised a concern with regards to source datedness. What more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted?
- NickD proposed a number of additional sources that could be included (reposted by SandyGeorgia on 21 Nov). Have these been evaluated?
- Some editors have raised concerns regarding how the article depicts or does not depict impact of the Empire on Indigenous peoples (including the question of genocide but also including other impacts). What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic?
- Style. Have all of Sandy's MOS points been addressed?
- Lead. CMD noted the use of sources only in the lead - has this been looked at?
- Structure. Femke raised concerns around how the article is organized - has this been looked at?
- Citation formatting. This needs standardization.
- Images. Other than sandwiching, has anyone looked at this? Are there issues in this area?
- Length. The article is currently slightly over the recommended prose maximum. Where are there opportunities to condense, keeping in mind the comprehensiveness criterion?
(I know the numbering doesn't line up with WIAFA, but if you could cite specific numbers in responses that would be very helpful). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- 1.1 Has been addressed
- 1.2 Seems to be stalled, I for one am not sure how to proceed on this one.
- 2.1 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus was nothing further was required and the topic seemed a bit specialised.
- 2.2 Source datedness - missed that one in discussion - what is required?
- 2.3 Nick D was invited to propose some text - the issue I see here is that the topics are in the main covered albeit briefly. I don't think a clear proposal has been forthcoming from Nick.
- 2.4 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus is the proposer was giving undue weight to fringe views.
- 3. Has been addressed.
- 4. I would propose removing sources from the lede but this is a perennial issue. The article attracts drive by tagging and the motivation is not always for improvement.
- 5. Structure I think is fine.
- 6. Citation formatting still needs work.
- 7. Images have been sorted.
- 8. Length - seems to be stalled whilst we have some suggesting additional content, until that is resolved, it's difficult to see how to move forward on this.
- Overall, to summarise, some minor fixes in formatting are still required but we still haven't addressed the conflict between additional content and reducing size. Is that a reasonable summary? WCMemail 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- On 2.1 and 2.4, I don't see consensus on these points, and would like answers to the specific questions above. Also looking for an answer on 2.2 with regards to recent scholarship, since this was part of Nick-D's points as well. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- WCM, just making sure you've seen this ↑. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen it. I do think 2.1 and 2.4 have been discussed above - the topic of economics wasn't raised really in regards to economics but rather one posters obsession with fringe views. In general works on the British Empire do tend to focus on the military aspects and as for governance it would be quite difficult to weave that in. The British Empire didn't have the rigid control structure characteristic of the Spanish Empire for example, rather it was a looser set of controls with almost each individual colony having its own, in many cases unique, form of government. As regards 2.2 I did ask what people thought were required, it still isn't clear to me? WCMemail 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- On 2.2, what more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted? On 2.1 and 2.4, yes they have been discussed, but I don't see a strong consensus on these issues, which is why I'm hoping you (or other respondents) will have specific answers to my questions to help sort out what's a fringe view and what is not. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 2.2 if you look below, we've made some additional material on the specific topic under discussion. WCMemail 00:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- On 2.2, what more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted? On 2.1 and 2.4, yes they have been discussed, but I don't see a strong consensus on these issues, which is why I'm hoping you (or other respondents) will have specific answers to my questions to help sort out what's a fringe view and what is not. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen it. I do think 2.1 and 2.4 have been discussed above - the topic of economics wasn't raised really in regards to economics but rather one posters obsession with fringe views. In general works on the British Empire do tend to focus on the military aspects and as for governance it would be quite difficult to weave that in. The British Empire didn't have the rigid control structure characteristic of the Spanish Empire for example, rather it was a looser set of controls with almost each individual colony having its own, in many cases unique, form of government. As regards 2.2 I did ask what people thought were required, it still isn't clear to me? WCMemail 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- WCM, just making sure you've seen this ↑. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- On 2.1 and 2.4, I don't see consensus on these points, and would like answers to the specific questions above. Also looking for an answer on 2.2 with regards to recent scholarship, since this was part of Nick-D's points as well. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- 1.2. Shorter sentences, easier words. We have some prose geniuses running around on WP. Can we ask them?
- 2.2. This was a side comment in the discussion about neutrality; I'll leave that to the experts.
- 5: it was specifically about the structure of legacy; has been addressed. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- While there have been improvements along the lines I've suggested, I'm a very firm delist due to the inadequate response to my comments - especially the utter failure of the article to cover the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians despite this being a central issue (arguably 'the' central issue) in the literature on the British Empire in Australia since the 1990s. The request that I provide text is insulting given the dismissive response I received to my comments above. Nick-D ( talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nick, see WCM's point re 2.3 above - was that something you were planning to work on, or no? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have tried to reach out to Nick on his talk page but he blanked my message. I've known Nick for a number of years and he has been my mentor for some time over difficult issues. Hence, I am somewhat perplexed by his response.
- To answer the question on content, the article is supposed to be an overview on the British Empire, as such is covers topics at a fairly shallow level. As such coverage of a fairly specialised topic such as the impact of colonisation on aboriginal australia is difficult to cover appropriately. I have tried to do some searching on google and google scholar but I found that many of the top items are advocacy websites and it is difficult to find neutral academic texts. I then looked at wikipedia [62] as a guide. As such I could propose:
- Nick, see WCM's point re 2.3 above - was that something you were planning to work on, or no? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"Colonisation had a disastrous impact on indigenous Australia, the introduction of diseases such as smallpox to which the indigenous people had no immunity combined with conflict over land, led to a massive reduction in the population."
- Thoughts, criticism, suggestions? WCMemail 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I had a brief look at this last year but didn't find sourcing and wording match I liked. I think it should lean more towards the conflict than the disease, and be worded to fit in between the Joseph Banks sentence (which should be trimmed) and the end of convict transport sentence, to place it within the chronology of settlement rather than as an outside issue. CMD ( talk) 03:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- A suggestion: "Unusually, Australia was claimed through proclamation. Indigenous Australians were considered too uncivilised to require treaties, [1][2] and colonisation brought disease and violence that together with the deliberate dispossession of land and culture were devastating to these peoples. [3][4]" CMD ( talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that, with one exception, was it unusual? WCMemail 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The sources contrasted Australia to other areas with existing populations, such as North America, where sovereignty was established through treaties with the natives, so I added unusually to reflect that point, and with regard to the importance the Terra nullius claim had on the the topic. In our text the next paragraph on New Zealand includes a treaty for contrast. CMD ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then I'm OK with adding it. WCMemail 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The sources contrasted Australia to other areas with existing populations, such as North America, where sovereignty was established through treaties with the natives, so I added unusually to reflect that point, and with regard to the importance the Terra nullius claim had on the the topic. In our text the next paragraph on New Zealand includes a treaty for contrast. CMD ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that, with one exception, was it unusual? WCMemail 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thoughts, criticism, suggestions? WCMemail 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not weighing in, per perception of conflict that could arise when there is controversy on an article I promoted. Although we are fast approaching a time where what FAC used to be versus what it is now is no longer relevant, and I may decide to no longer worry about that. For now, I am abstaining. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delist – I'm not convinced this article is the appropriate format for an "empire". Look at other empire FAs for example, the Han dynasty, has sizable sections on Culture and society, Government and politics, Economy, Science and technology; and similar formats appear in the Parthian Empire or Byzantine Empire. These are all concerns that have been brought up by multiple editors. As unfortunate as it is, this article is a "history of British Empire" or a really well made timeline. Aza24 ( talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The "appropriate format for an empire"? Could you point us to the FA criteria setting out the mandated structure of an article on an empire? We seem to have missed it. And so have all the sources: they don't talk about a consistent empire-wide culture, society, government, or economy (etc) - because there wasn't one - but they do focus on the history. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Wiki-Ed, I am referring to criteria 1b and 1c of the FAC criteria. When a host of other empire/major civilization FAs ( Vijayanagara Empire, Chalukya dynasty, Maya civilization, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Norte Chico civilization, Parthian Empire, Ancient Egypt, Tang dynasty, Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty as just a start) have far more than just a history section, one begins to think that perhaps the fault lies with the odd one out. No section on how the largest empire in history governed itself? Oxford bibliographies, with just a small 100 years of the empire already has significantly more topics referred to than here. And where is the section on decolialization? The most consequential part of the empire effecting out modern world is barely explored. The word "imperialism" or "nationalism" are absent from the article — Oxford bibliographies:
The massive literature on the British Empire breaks down roughly into three groupings, dealing first with general overviews of the empires growth or its role in the international system over time, thereafter with British imperialism in regional context, in which British India and British colonialism in Africa account for much of the literature
— not a single reference they recommend is included; and I haven't even look at their sections for British India/Africa. Another; what about Demographics of the British Empire, Economy of the British Empire or Historiography of the British Empire? Aza24 ( talk) 18:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)- Aza24, without wishing to sound rude, we have discussed a fair bit of this already (above). That said, discussion is not the same as agreement and so I think the onus is on FAR administrators to reconcile some of the inconsistencies between FA criteria and WP Core Policies (particularly weighting) and MOS guidelines (particularly article length). I'll break down what I think you're arguing:
- (1) Comparators: You're pointing to FAs for countries, dynasties and civilisations. For ancient examples (of the sort you've cited) 'empire' and 'civilisation' might be one and the same, but that does not hold true for modern empires (British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese etc) which did not (horribly generalising here) have uniform social/economic/cultural (etc) characteristics across their entire territory or entire lifespan. For example, I cannot think of any way to summarise the 'government' or 'military' of the British Empire in a few short parapraphs in the same way as the Parthian Empire. Summarising such things in an overview article would almost certainly be misleading (and even authors with hundreds of pages to play with eschew this). The comparator articles for this topic are modern Empires, most of which adopt a similar 'timeline' overview approach.
- (2) Other sources: You're cited Oxford Bibliographies. I don't have access to that so I can't see what you're referring to. However, I think the point you're making is that a tertiary source has organised its information differently to Wikipedia. We are not using that model - perhaps for good reason if the section you've quoted is representative of the quality overall - we are using a style adopted by a large number of secondary sources - your source refers to them as "general overviews of the empires (sic) growth".
- (3) Content balance: You've suggested there isn't enough material on certain topics (incidentally, you'll find decolonisation in the section entitled "Decolonisation and decline"). Other contributors have also said similar, but about different issues. This article cannot cover every single thing that happened in every single country that formed part of the British Empire: "regional context" (your source's point) is too complex to summarise in an overview: there are separate (lengthy) articles on topics like the British Raj and colonialism in Africa; historiographical concepts live in the historiography article. You've spotted a few others. I would note that many of those articles are quite poor - weak sourcing, undue weighting, partial coverage - perhaps reflecting the argument I made above that it is very difficult to summarise these topics in a full-size book, let alone an article, let alone a paragraph within an article.
- (4) FAC vs article length: Finally, you refer to the FA Criteria. Being "comprehensive" seems to be at odds with the MOS article length guidelines. None of the contributors to this discussion seem to be able to resolve their demands for content on topic XYZ with the fact we cannot (a) cover everything and (b) reliable sources do not consistently weight some of those topics them as importantly as those WP editors, so the topics shouldn't be taking up space. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you do have access to Oxford bibliographies in the WP library. I don't know how having discussed this earlier means anything other than validating my concerns—the fact that I came here noticing the same things that other editors have brought up only reinforces the issues(s) (unless of course, you were just telling me to "go away"). When I'm talking about a section on decolonisation, I'm talking about the aftermath, i.e. the unstable countries that the British Empire left; the absence of this, and the extreme lack of information of imperialism or nationalism makes me think this article is seriously POV pushing. I look up in the FAR and see that users have been complaining about the lack of information on Indigenous Australians, the POV pushing is evident on three fronts now. I mean come on, slavery/imperialism/genocide aren't even mentioned in the lead? I've given you two/three links to a professionally curated website which discusses literature pertaining to imperialism. All of this said, I'm still blown away that there is no economy section.
- In general, I'm not convinced this article is one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer"—I look at the past FAR and see extremely divided editors, bringing up similar ones as here. If 10 years apart an article is still receiving the same criticism, there is something wrong with the article, not the editors commenting on it. I am not a hard editor to "please"—but I don't know if there is much hope here, defenders of the article seem too occupied on defending the article's current state, then considering what it would look like were other editors complaints explored. Aza24 ( talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Re Oxford Bibliographies: maybe you've forgotten (?) you had to go through a process to acquire access. It is not automatic so no, I don't have access.
- Re earlier discussions, both here and in previous FARs: Small numbers of persistent editors do not decide content. That's why we have core policies and they (particularly WP:NPOV) state that content is determined by the relative weighting of coverage in reliable sources. We're using a structure based on sources providing a general overview of the British Empire - not those examining niche issues, modern historiographical terminology or specific countries (etc). If they do not choose to focus their coverage on imperialism, or nationalism, or Australia, or famine, or the history of all the countries in the world since the British left... then we don't either. That's not to say those topics don't deserve their own article. It's not to say issues don't get a name drop here. But if editors cannot prove it is a primary focus in the sources then we don't make a big deal of it in this article: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So on that note, since you're "blown away" by its omission, perhaps you could try to write a short (1-2 para), verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral summary on the economy of the British Empire? There seem to be a lot of critics here, but it's difficult to explore complaints - as you put it - if it's not clear (to either side) what new content might look like. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain the library now has an instant access program for 25 specific sites, Nikkimaria please correct me if I'm wrong or it's more intricate than that. Wiki-Ed, I sympathize with the predicament at hand, and regrettably, I'm too entrenched in other articles right now to write something for this one. If more editors share opinions on the matter contrary to mine, please let me know and I will see if that makes me revise my impressions. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, it's available to everyone who meets basic experience requirements automatically, which I expect would include most if not all editors here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain the library now has an instant access program for 25 specific sites, Nikkimaria please correct me if I'm wrong or it's more intricate than that. Wiki-Ed, I sympathize with the predicament at hand, and regrettably, I'm too entrenched in other articles right now to write something for this one. If more editors share opinions on the matter contrary to mine, please let me know and I will see if that makes me revise my impressions. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Wiki-Ed, I am referring to criteria 1b and 1c of the FAC criteria. When a host of other empire/major civilization FAs ( Vijayanagara Empire, Chalukya dynasty, Maya civilization, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Norte Chico civilization, Parthian Empire, Ancient Egypt, Tang dynasty, Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty as just a start) have far more than just a history section, one begins to think that perhaps the fault lies with the odd one out. No section on how the largest empire in history governed itself? Oxford bibliographies, with just a small 100 years of the empire already has significantly more topics referred to than here. And where is the section on decolialization? The most consequential part of the empire effecting out modern world is barely explored. The word "imperialism" or "nationalism" are absent from the article — Oxford bibliographies:
- The "appropriate format for an empire"? Could you point us to the FA criteria setting out the mandated structure of an article on an empire? We seem to have missed it. And so have all the sources: they don't talk about a consistent empire-wide culture, society, government, or economy (etc) - because there wasn't one - but they do focus on the history. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments I am not convinced by the arguments that the article lacks comprehensiveness or neutrality. The argument on comprehensiveness seems to be an argument for a page move rather than a delist and is countered by the argument that the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context. The economy and demographics are covered in the lead, so it's an argument over structure not content. The argument on neutrality is countered by arguments of length and representative literature. On prose, though, I think improvements are possible. Considering the lead:
- 1. First paragraph: redundancy, At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories. Change it to the simpler: At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets" as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.
- 2. Second paragraph: overly-complex prose, A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. [note also raised above by Femke] Change it to the simpler: A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (and Britain after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707) the dominant colonial power in North America.
- 3. Third paragraph: redundancy, The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies. [repetition of independence, repetition of colonies, repetition of America] Change it to the simpler: The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. Remove redundant soon, remove redundant and unidiomatic across the globe, remove redundant in Europe and the world
- 4. Fourth paragraph: redundancy and repetition: During the 19th century [already covered by of the 19th century in the preceding paragraph] Remove the opening clause and join the third and fourth paragraphs together as one paragraph. Lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs anyway per WP:LEAD
- 5. Fifth paragraph: redundancy, the military, financial, and manpower resources of Britain simpler as its military, financial, and manpower resources; Although the British Empire simpler as Although the empire.
6. Final sentence, strays off-topic into relatively minor point. Hardly anyone knows about the realms and most histories don't use the term. Either cut the final sentence completely or merge the final and penultimate sentences into the easier: After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of over 50 independent states, 16 of which retain a common monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.DrKay ( talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)- These have been broadly done, with some adjustments, and I made some other lead changes to deal with the extraneous material I mentioned above. Upon checking, I believe the issue I raised (which became Nikkimaria's point 4) has now been dealt with. CMD ( talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Macintyre, Stuart (2009). A Concise History of Australia]. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 9780521516082.
- ^ Broome, Richard (2010). Aboriginal Australians: A history since 1788. Allen & Unwin. p. 18. ISBN 9781741765540.
- ^ Pascoe, Bruce (2018). Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. Magabala Books. ISBN 9781925768954.
- ^ McKenna, Mark (2002). Looking for Blackfellas' Point: An Australian History of Place. UNSW Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780868406442.
- "the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context". A number of reviewers have argued otherwise. Even if the article were moved to History of the British Empire, it would also have to be delisted. This is because the article never mentions Aborigines, Native Americans, or the word genocide, despite these three terms being the heavy focuses of literature on the British Empire in Australia and North America. The article's coverage of the Indian Famines is also simply inaccurate.-- Quality posts here ( talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage is based on reliable source, not on a small number of Wikipedia editors' personal views. Those topics are not a major focus of general histories of the British Empire and sometimes don't even get mentioned. You have had multiple opportunities to prove otherwise. Your failure to do so speaks volumes. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D has shown Aborigines are a huge focus of works on the British Empire in Australia, above. Also, if those books don't touch on the fields of anthropology, economics, etc. then they are simple historical narratives rather than comprehensive summaries of the British Empire.-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Key words there, British Empire in Australia and this is a generalised article covering all of the British Empire not just the British Empire in Australia. Emphasis added to make the point. WCMemail 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D has shown Aborigines are a huge focus of works on the British Empire in Australia, above. Also, if those books don't touch on the fields of anthropology, economics, etc. then they are simple historical narratives rather than comprehensive summaries of the British Empire.-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage is based on reliable source, not on a small number of Wikipedia editors' personal views. Those topics are not a major focus of general histories of the British Empire and sometimes don't even get mentioned. You have had multiple opportunities to prove otherwise. Your failure to do so speaks volumes. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wiki-Ed and Wee Curry Monster: Could you please identify specific general histories of the British Empire and outline their relative weighting? At the moment I do not see consensus on the issues I identified under point 2 above. Also Wiki-Ed, I wanted to make sure you saw that you do in fact have access to the site cited by Aza24 above; if you disagree with that source, could you please provide specific sources that conflict with it and a rationale as to why they are preferable? Overall, I'm seeing several commenters advocating delisting identifying specific sources to support their views, and commenters advocating keeping referring to "general histories of the British Empire" but not specific works to counter. Also, some of the other issues raised above remain unaddressed, such as citation formatting which is still a bit of a hodgepodge. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- CMD, with your comment above, are you now of the opinion that the article should be kept, or do you believe delisting is warranted? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- With the caveat that I am still gaining experience at FAC/FAR, at the moment I lean towards keep. I feel tensions between the inclusion of information and article size will exist even in Featured Articles. The debate about article format, whether more a country-style page or more a History page, are interesting, but I feel that is potentially more of a title issue than a content issue, if that makes sense. Reformatting it to a more country-style format would be a massive undertaking and would create a completely different article to the one currently under discussion. Inputting on the Wiki-Ed library access point, I also do not have access to the OAuth service, as clicking that link brings me to a page asking me to provide access to my account. It is possible Wiki-Ed has not given permission either. On citations I have fixed some, and have the others on my to do list. CMD ( talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've looked at the Oxford Bibliographies and the first general work I would have cited is listed:
- Louis, William Roger, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire. 8 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998–1999.
- I think you'll find this was a significant source used when the article first achieved FA status. The other I would have listed would have been:
- James, Lawrence The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus. 2001
- One of the reviews of "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" is helpful here:
- "Great Britain's geopolitical role in the global scheme of things has undergone many radical changes over the last four centuries. Once a maritime superpower and ruler of half the world, Britain's current position as an isolated, economically fragile island squabbling with her European neighbors often seems difficult to accept, if not comprehend. Although still afforded nominal status through membership of groups such as G7 and the retention of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the simple truth is that Britain has been resting on her laurels since 1945, if not before. The British Empire is both cause and effect of this spectacular transformation. At first an exercise in straightforward profit-making, foreign exploration and colonization by British settlers, traders, and entrepreneurs soon gave rise to serious moral misgivings about the exploitation of native peoples and resources. But the riches to be gained from empire-building were always a powerful argument in its favor, although changes in the domestic social and political climate made benevolent imperialism a more desired objective. The lure of profit was tempered by an urge to uplift and civilize. Those responsible for the glories of empire were also driven by questionable motives. Personal fame and fortune formed an inevitable and attractive by-product of the conquest of new territories, and many empire-builders felt an unimpeachable sense of destiny. The achievements, however, cannot be denied, and during its heyday the British Empire was the envy of the world. Revisionist historians make much of the stunted potential of the former colonies, but as always, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes."
- The above isn't listed but I note that other works are e.g. James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. London: Little, Brown, 1997
- In terms of weighting, if you do a comparison, then the article as it stands compares favourably. I also checked the sources used in the article, they do reflect the Oxford bibliographies rather well. e.g. examples I gave above are represented. So I would venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
- I note one of the criticism of the article is the claim that imperialism isn't mentioned. I just checked, it is mentioned 31 times. Again I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
- I note also the claim that nationalism isn't mentioned, again referring to the article it is, 25 times. A pattern is emerging here, I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
- Next turning to the comparison with other "Empires", a criticism I would say is largely comparing apples with oranges. The suggestions of various editors are for sections on Government, law, Culture, Demographics. Such suggestions seem to me to be rather naive.
- Lets us for starters, consider Government. Generalising somewhat, Empires, such as the Spanish Empire. had rigid social structures and were centrally controlled. The British Empire is the odd one out here, it didn't ever have an easily defined form of government and perhaps the best generalised description is a loose federation of a diverse and disparate state entities whose relationship with the mother country varied considerably over the span of the empire. For example Canada started out as a series of colonies, that gradually transitioned to a self-governing Commonwealth and ultimately independence. India started out as a series of nation states, each came under control of the British East India Company, was gradually amalgamated into a single entity and after the Indian mutiny came under direct a Viceroy and was managed via the Indian Civil Service and became independent after a nationalist movement that ultimately split the Raj along religious divides. Others were protectorates and then there is the League of Nation mandates, which it is debatable whether they were part of the British Empire. Each colony was almost unique and was governed in a different manner. The description we give to the British Empire is "The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states." Any reasonable summary on government of the Empire would end up larger than the current article. If anything it's something for a specialised article..
- Next law. Every element of the British Empire had it's own laws and judiciary. About the only example I can think off, where the UK itself imposed law on it's Empire was the abolition of the slave trade.
- Culture and demographics, the British Empire was so unbelievably diverse I can't even begin to comprehend how you would cover such a broad topic.
- If you look at books on the British Empire, they don't try and tackle these, rather where it is tackled, it is a specific topic that is captured eg Economics of the Raj.
- So what is being suggested is pretty impractical for any summary article on the British Empire and I would venture to suggest that perhaps such suggestions hadn't been fully thought through. People really are not thinking practically about the tension between article size and the inclusion of more information.
- Finally, tackling the elephant in the room. Some elements of the criticism of this article are concerned with what the editor considers the WP:GREATWRONGS of the British Empire. They're not writing from a neutral perspective and are quoting from revisionist historical works. Their criticism that such material isn't included is unfounded, in all cases the material that they suggest is already covered. The difference is that the article doesn't use the loaded words they wish to see. As such I firmly believe their comments to be irrelevant for a FAR. WCMemail 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- You claim the government, economy and society of the British Empire can't be summarized, then immediately summarize them.-- Quality posts here ( talk) 06:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria We’ve discussed this before and I’ve already provided a list of general histories (see late Nov above). The onus is on those advocating undue emphasis to explain why they think some exception should be made to Wikipedia’s core policies on balancing, not on the rest of us to defend that position.
- Regarding the Oxford Bibliographies: as I said previously and User:CMD has confirmed, would-be visitors have to provide access to account details. I had wanted to avoid this, but equally I don’t like arguing in the dark. So, having now had a poke around, I would make three observations about using it:
- (1) Searching the corpus for “British Empire” returned 2,182 separate bibliographies. I’m assuming that User:Aza24 clicked on a single bibliography - selectively quoted above - that most closely conformed to his or her conception of what the subject should be about. However, the reality is that while all 2,182 entries are legitimate perspectives, (a) we cannot cover them all in one article and (b) those perspectives are often far too narrow to be relevant for an overview article which is already too long by MOS standards.
- (2) Following on from that, none of the top entries are covering the same scope as this article (different date range or geography; or narrow focus on one theme) so they are not a reliable indication of weighting (which is the only reason we should be using a tertiary source anyway).
- (3) And, as User:WCM has already pointed out, despite taking a partial view of the topic the bibliographies I’ve skimmed all seem to revert to citing the same sources that we do here (as per my Nov comments: Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith etc) in order to provide the general background. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You claim the government, economy and society of the British Empire can't be summarized, then immediately summarize them.-- Quality posts here ( talk) 06:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've looked at the Oxford Bibliographies and the first general work I would have cited is listed:
- Citation formatting (summary point 6: Citation formatting still needs work): All book and journal sources have been edited to fit the standard formatting, and the others have been made more consistent. Hopefully if there is anything left for this it is minor. CMD (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn my delist. The prose quality of the lede has improved after DrKay's comments in terms of understandability. My concerns about the structure and neutrality of the legacy section had been addressed before. I will not declare a keep because my knowledge of the topic is limited. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The article explicitly addresses the colonization of Australia and Indian famines. The arguments of the demoters appear flawed. Increasing the coverage of specific aspects further would imbalance the article by stressing one part of the empire above all the others. That is inappropriate. The claim that the article does not cover specific topics and is therefore not comprehensive is not borne out. DrKay (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article still doesn't mention Aborigines, despite the lengthy discussion on this topic, above, and the British Empire being accused of genocide against them by some notable historians and international legal scholars. Can you please explain why you think this is acceptable? Additionally, I showed that many views about the exploitative nature of the Empire are not included in the article despite being held by "prominent adherents", the only test outlined by WP:DUE for whether a view should be on Wikipedia. Can you please address them specifically?-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article does mention indigenous Australians, as anyone who bothers to look can easily verify [63]. Continuing to repeat false statements about the article makes you look ill-informed at best. DrKay ( talk) 23:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article still doesn't mention Aborigines, despite the lengthy discussion on this topic, above, and the British Empire being accused of genocide against them by some notable historians and international legal scholars. Can you please explain why you think this is acceptable? Additionally, I showed that many views about the exploitative nature of the Empire are not included in the article despite being held by "prominent adherents", the only test outlined by WP:DUE for whether a view should be on Wikipedia. Can you please address them specifically?-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Queston: How will this FAR be closed?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Anything else to be done
As far as I can tell all the points raised have been addressed, the one remaining is that the article is rather long. Should we be thinking about trimming the article? WCMemail 17:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article is currently 64 kB (10445 words) "readable prose size" - generally the upper limit of article size is 50kb. The issue would be whether any segment of article could be relegated to a daughter article and trimmed/summarised without losing article integrity. If someone can find a section, maybe raise it here. Cas Liber ( talk·contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're probably in the right place because we're midway between groups of critics. On one hand we have editors saying it's too long (at 10445 words). On the other we have some contributors to this discussion suggesting we copy the structure of the Roman Empire article (26,000 words). We're never going to keep everyone happy and I don't think it would be worth the effort of trying. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drive by Comment Size looks good to me. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Five months in, and a quick glance reveals that basics have yet to be addressed.
- The sea of blue and serious WP:OVERLINKing that I raised eons ago has not been addressed, as evidence by a quick glance at the lead, where we have global power linked twice, to two different parts of an article (neither of which define "global power"), and unnecessary links to continents and geographical places like the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific Ocean. (No, these are not Easter egg links to sub-articles about the British Empire in those places, and they are not needed; neither is World War II needed as a link.) User:Evad37/duplinks-alt reveals more. The sea of blue needs to be addressed throughout.
- A glance at the lead reveals that a copyedit has not been performed. A sentence in the lead starts with a number, and there is still overuse of the almost always redundant word also throughout the article. Please see User:Tony1's writing exercises and get someone to go through the entire article.
I am not impressed that this FAR was brought forward by an SPA, but nonetheless, all issues should be addressed while we are here. I raised these, and other issues, four months ago. By now, someone should have read through the article to correct the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest you do a compare between the article as was and is now.
- A copyright of the lead has been done, you said you'd had a quick look, would you like to look again and comment.
- We've also reduced a lot of the links but I'll take a look at what you've found. WCMemail 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK would someone check that I've not missed any duplicate links and I've trimmed a lot of the extraneous links. We have been addressing stuff as we went along but I guess this got missed. WCMemail 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you run the dup links script? I am not saying *all* duplicates must be removed because, in a long article, repeating links deep into the article can be helpful. Judgment calls are needed, just want to make sure you did run the tool to evaluate all of them before I spend time re-evaluating. I see you fixed the sentence starting with a number, and de-alsofied. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did run the script, thanks for the tip. I've also removed a lot of link clutter as well. WCMemail 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing all of that, Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did run the script, thanks for the tip. I've also removed a lot of link clutter as well. WCMemail 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can we like, give credit to the painters and artists (and the year when the work was made) when their works are used? Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:, @Nikkimaria: In previous FAR I've been involved in, we've created lists of tasks to do to finalise the FAR. Unfortunately this FAR has not really followed that constructive format and an awful lot of effort has been spent addressing what in many cases is well meaning but impractical suggestions. Can we pull a list of remaining things to do and start a push to finish this please. WCMemail 12:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The process has stagnated because multiple editors have presented a neutrality issue and rather than trying to address it by altering the article, you and others have flat out-denied its existence. It seems that this FARC is destined for delisting, unless editors actually try to work on the problem, rather than avoiding it. However, editors recognizing the issue at hand have been deterred away after having received uncolloborative responses, so good luck with that. Aza24 ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: After reading the above FAR, I want to comment to try to move this along. I read the article and I agree that this is an excellent article on the History of the British Empire, but struggles to explain other aspects of the Empire. I also agree that explaining the legal system, governance structure, cultural aspects, and social aspects of the Empire is difficult because these were varied between the colonies and changed over time. However, I still recommend moving this article to "History of the British Empire" as the legal system, etc., of an empire is an important part of explaining the topic and needs to be included for this article to be comprehensive (and thus fulfil WP:FA? 1b). If editors disagree with this move, would it be possible to schedule an RfC on this topic and solicit feedback on the name of the article? If the RfC recommends keeping the article at "British Empire" I will withdraw my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720, would you be willing to start such an RfC? Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I can. Proposed text for the RfC is below.
- Should this article be titled "British Empire", "History of the British Empire", or something else?
- At its featured article review, there has been discussion on what the title of this article should be. Supporters of "British Empire" state that aspects of the empire, such as its governance system and culture, were closely tied to its historical events and thus explained as part of its history. This is similar to how sources describe the empire. Furthermore, the empire's governance, legal, and cultural structure were drastically different between colonies and changed over time; explaining this would make the article too large and this information is already in articles about countries that were part of the empire. Those who support "History of the British Empire" state that the article focuses too much on the empire's history and lacks information in other sections, such as the governance or legal structure of the empire. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's text.
- Does this description neutrally describe the perspectives? If there are no objections I will post it to RfC. Z1720 ( talk) 18:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Having suggested a similar move above, my understanding of the responses was not that explaining things would make the article too large (which is a poor argument), but more that having sections like Governance Demographics etc. simply don't work well for the British Empire, as it never had a central governance structure or similar, and these facets varied so much over the time period covered that they'd end up structured historically anyway. CMD ( talk) 02:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for, renaming a page should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKay ( talk) 06:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I think both the size and scope of the article were expressed as arguments against moving the page. I won't comment on the merits of those arguments, but I am happy to remove the size argument from the description if others think it is not needed. @DrKay: I'll submit this to requested moves instead. Z1720 ( talk) 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for suggesting neutral wording for the proposed RfC. Could I suggest three things to make it a little bit clearer?
- (1) That you keep the length point. I reject the argument offered below by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus; we don't get to arbitrarily decide which aspects of the MOS to apply and which to ignore. But if this is an argument to be had then it should be had as part of the RfC;
- (2) That you add a few additional words to clarify that the proponents of "British Empire" believe that inserting content suggesting there was singular, organised governance, legislation, culture (etc) would be Original Research (CMD argument above);
- (3) The relevant content already exists in other articles on the countries that made up the British Empire. You do allude to this, but I think we need to be very clear that this is about the logic of content forking as much as article length. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 08:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- (1) I plan to keep the length argument.
- (2) I added info in the description that the governance, etc. changed depending on geography and time period. I skimmed through the FAR again and I can't find where it's been suggested that there was one single governance structure throughout the empire, so I don't think the OR argument is necessary. If someone makes that argument in the move discussion we can discuss it there.
- (3) I added text that a "keep" argument states the content already exists elsewhere. I'm not sure how to incorporate the content forking into the description without adding a new sentence, and I am mindful that large descriptions deter editors from commenting. As this is only supposed to be an overview of the discussion so far, not a complete description, I think leaving it out is acceptable and editors can expand upon the argument during the discussion.
- I have also conducted a copyedit of the description, with the goal of shortening the text without losing the essence of the arguments. I encourage everyone to review and post their thoughts on the wording. Z1720 ( talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for considering my points. Point taken on OR and forking - both are implicit. I've had another look at your revised version. If you switch the order (changers then keepers) it allows you to cut an explanatory line and save ~40 words. I'd also propose a few tweaks to the wording: " Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's history events and lacks information on other aspects, such as governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire." We probably need a view from someone else as I'm most definitely on one side of the argument... Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I think both the size and scope of the article were expressed as arguments against moving the page. I won't comment on the merits of those arguments, but I am happy to remove the size argument from the description if others think it is not needed. @DrKay: I'll submit this to requested moves instead. Z1720 ( talk) 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I can. Proposed text for the RfC is below.
I stated above that I am on the "pro-move" side, which I think is the opposite from your perspective, so I feel comfortable posting something that we both agree is neutral. I did a copyedit to the text above: "At its featured article review, there has been discussion on what the title of this article should be. Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's historical events and lacks information on other aspects, such as its governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws, and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; they believe this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire." Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth I have to concur with people that as-is the article feels more like an article about the history of the BE than about the BE itself. There is far too much about the historical events and too little about the governance etc. I think I'll recommend that we go to FARC until this issue is resolved. Personal opinion wise, I don't find the article too long and I think folks need to focus more on whether a split improves or degrades readability and less about meeting arbitrary length quotas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, since I only just noticed that this article is already at FARC, my opinion here is delist. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Incidentally, Wikipedia:Article size is neither part of the WP:MOS nor of the Featured article criteria (which also don't prescribe a length limit; their actual text is
It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
). In particular, I do think that WP:NPOV compliance implies that you cannot simply split off subtopics until the main article becomes unbalanced. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Article size is part of Wikipedia:Summary style, and is regularly considered at FAC, so I agree with Wiki-ed that it shouldn't be dismissed here. Has this article been split off so as to make it unbalanced? CMD ( talk) 09:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Incidentally, Wikipedia:Article size is neither part of the WP:MOS nor of the Featured article criteria (which also don't prescribe a length limit; their actual text is
Requested move posted
As per the above, a requested move has been posted to change this article's name from "British Empire" to "History of the British Empire". Editors are invited to the discussion on Talk:British Empire. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move request has been closed as "not moved" Z1720 ( talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Z1720, CMD, in light of this outcome, what's your opinion on the status of the article? Aza24, DrKay, does this change your perspective at all? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would like to do a deep read of the article, and probably trim some information, before giving it a final verdict. I have a busy week coming up, so if I don't comment here by June please ping me again. Z1720 ( talk) 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The thing that keeps recurring is the comment by some for the need to cover law, governance and culture. This being based for example on articles such as the Roman Empire, itself already rather large. And without it, they insist the article should be delisted. The elephant in the room is that what is being demanded is something that would be virtually impossible to achieve - and it seems that on the BE talk page this point has consensus. As such, we really do need to resolve this issue as personally I think it would be a travesty to spurn years of hard work in writing this article. WCMemail 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the discussions is that most editors support presenting information in BE chronologically, with information about law, governance, culture, etc. incorporated within this chronological timeline instead of their own sections. For example, a sentence about the Colonial Office might be included in the first British Empire section, with its temporary abolishment highlighted as a consequence of American Independence. Do others agree with this interpretation? Z1720 ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a quick question, do you believe the Colonial Office ran the Empire? WCMemail 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: No, the Colonial Office did not run the Empire. My understanding is the Colonial Office was kind of like the liaison between some parts of the colonies (mostly the colonies in North America, but later including other colonies) from the late 1700s to its abolition in the 1960s. The office went through a couple of name changes and a couple of mandate changes (War Office was merged, then split from this office, for example). The amount of power and influence of the Colonial Office over the colonies depended on the colony, the time period, government policies (and the political party in charge), the people occupying the Colonial Office administration, and the government administrators in the colonies. It was also where the lieutenant-governors of the colonies in Canada would submit their reports (or sometimes fail or avoid submitting reports) on the activities within their colony. Z1720 ( talk) 16:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK that was going to be my point, how do you propose to weave in law, governance, culture, etc? It's such a complex topic that I really don't see how you could do it in an overview without being so simplified as to lack value. WCMemail 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's what this FAR needs to determine. It's been three weeks since I read the article (and, honestly, I skipped some parts because it is a very long article) so I can't give specifics yet (and I have a busy week coming up so please excuse my delay in posting comments). I remember the last time I read it that there was information that could be cut to make room for other info. I'll post more comments about that when I go through it. I also trust that the reader will understand that the article is an overview of the topic, and they can click on the hatnotes and wikilinks for more information. Z1720 ( talk) 17:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- (I hope editors will not wait for me and start looking at the article themselves. This FAR has been open too long and having another editor comment first will help get this article out of here.) Z1720 ( talk) 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's a case of cutting material to make space for other material. We should not be inserting original ideas about what happened or giving undue weight to events/people/organisations. Even if a statement is factually accurate the casual reader might assume it is more significant than it actually is simply because it is included. For example, you propose we include a short paragraph explaining the role and history of the Colonial Office on the basis you believe it acted as a liaison between some parts of the colonies. I should note, first, that it had no role in the most important area (India Office) or other issues overseen by the Foreign Office. But more importantly, what would we actually be saying? What sort of liaison function was realistically possible in the period before the telegraph came along? Was 'government' at different stages of the Empire comparable to what it meant at later stages (or even today)? The danger of including short but unqualified statements - even if verifiable - in this sort of overview article is that they are misleadingly simplified. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was giving the Colonial Office as an example of something that might be included to explain the governance structure of BE. I don't think it needs its own paragraph; one sentence about its function should suffice, and perhaps additional sentences to explain it. I want to cut text in the article because it is a very long article, not "to make space for other material".
- I'm not sure it's a case of cutting material to make space for other material. We should not be inserting original ideas about what happened or giving undue weight to events/people/organisations. Even if a statement is factually accurate the casual reader might assume it is more significant than it actually is simply because it is included. For example, you propose we include a short paragraph explaining the role and history of the Colonial Office on the basis you believe it acted as a liaison between some parts of the colonies. I should note, first, that it had no role in the most important area (India Office) or other issues overseen by the Foreign Office. But more importantly, what would we actually be saying? What sort of liaison function was realistically possible in the period before the telegraph came along? Was 'government' at different stages of the Empire comparable to what it meant at later stages (or even today)? The danger of including short but unqualified statements - even if verifiable - in this sort of overview article is that they are misleadingly simplified. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- (I hope editors will not wait for me and start looking at the article themselves. This FAR has been open too long and having another editor comment first will help get this article out of here.) Z1720 ( talk) 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's what this FAR needs to determine. It's been three weeks since I read the article (and, honestly, I skipped some parts because it is a very long article) so I can't give specifics yet (and I have a busy week coming up so please excuse my delay in posting comments). I remember the last time I read it that there was information that could be cut to make room for other info. I'll post more comments about that when I go through it. I also trust that the reader will understand that the article is an overview of the topic, and they can click on the hatnotes and wikilinks for more information. Z1720 ( talk) 17:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK that was going to be my point, how do you propose to weave in law, governance, culture, etc? It's such a complex topic that I really don't see how you could do it in an overview without being so simplified as to lack value. WCMemail 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: No, the Colonial Office did not run the Empire. My understanding is the Colonial Office was kind of like the liaison between some parts of the colonies (mostly the colonies in North America, but later including other colonies) from the late 1700s to its abolition in the 1960s. The office went through a couple of name changes and a couple of mandate changes (War Office was merged, then split from this office, for example). The amount of power and influence of the Colonial Office over the colonies depended on the colony, the time period, government policies (and the political party in charge), the people occupying the Colonial Office administration, and the government administrators in the colonies. It was also where the lieutenant-governors of the colonies in Canada would submit their reports (or sometimes fail or avoid submitting reports) on the activities within their colony. Z1720 ( talk) 16:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a quick question, do you believe the Colonial Office ran the Empire? WCMemail 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the discussions is that most editors support presenting information in BE chronologically, with information about law, governance, culture, etc. incorporated within this chronological timeline instead of their own sections. For example, a sentence about the Colonial Office might be included in the first British Empire section, with its temporary abolishment highlighted as a consequence of American Independence. Do others agree with this interpretation? Z1720 ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The thing that keeps recurring is the comment by some for the need to cover law, governance and culture. This being based for example on articles such as the Roman Empire, itself already rather large. And without it, they insist the article should be delisted. The elephant in the room is that what is being demanded is something that would be virtually impossible to achieve - and it seems that on the BE talk page this point has consensus. As such, we really do need to resolve this issue as personally I think it would be a travesty to spurn years of hard work in writing this article. WCMemail 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would like to do a deep read of the article, and probably trim some information, before giving it a final verdict. I have a busy week coming up, so if I don't comment here by June please ping me again. Z1720 ( talk) 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Z1720, CMD, in light of this outcome, what's your opinion on the status of the article? Aza24, DrKay, does this change your perspective at all? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did a quick skim and there are places where the same idea can be expressed in fewer words. For example, "By the turn of the 20th century, fears had begun to grow in Britain that it would no longer be able to defend the metropole and the entirety of the empire while at the same time maintaining the policy of "splendid isolation"." This could be: "By the 20th century, Britain feared it could not maintain a policy of "splendid isolation" while defending its colonies and the Isle of Britain." (225 characters reduced to 144) During a copyedit I am bold and make sentence structure changes, and I hope others check my edits to make sure I didn't change the meaning of something in my edit (and if/when I do, that other editors only fix what needs to be fixed, instead of reverting) There are also sentences that I don't think are important for this article, and when encountered I post questions on the talk page. See Talk:War_of_the_Fifth_Coalition#Re-review questions for my FAR style. I mention this because I don't want to spend hours editing the article and then have all my actions reverted and a bunch of pings criticizing me. If my approach is not helpful for this article, I hope editors will let me know below or privately through email before starting this copyedit next week. Z1720 ( talk) 21:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we all agree a copyedit to reduce the size of the article would be helpful. Where I think there is concern is the proposal to somehow weave in law, governance, culture, etc because I believe there are doubts that it is possible or that inevitably it would result in some WP:OR. It would help if you could suggest the sources you think could guide this. WCMemail 22:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed reply. Given the result of the move request, I believe this article should be kept. CMD (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I've begun a copyedit of the article, as I promised last week. I have also posted questions and concerns on the article's talk page for consideration. This will take a few days to complete. @WP:FAR coordinators: should I start my own section here (like the structure of FAC) or continue with this thread? Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ummm, not too fussed. Whichever makes it easier to navigate I guess.... Cas Liber ( talk·contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reading through this article, I'm struck that this really only focuses on history. This article is severely lacking on information about how this empire was actually organized/governed/ruled etc. We've got a whole Category:Governance of the British Empire, but nothing really there about this topic in this article. I don't see how this is comprehensive without information on how this empire was ruled/led. And yes, the article is currently too long to accomplish adding another substantive section, but the way to handle that is to spin out the redirect at History of the British Empire into a lengthier discussion of history, and have a condensed history, with governance structure, any unifying culture, and the legacy/criticism stuff at the British Empire article. This article in its current state is basically a massive prose timeline. Gonna say delist, as this has been dragging on for about seven months. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reading through your comment I'm guessing you found it too much trouble to read the previous discussion on the point you've just made, or to bother to check the outcome of the recent RfC on this "History of the British Empire" proposal (it was dismissed rather firmly, partly because it would be OR). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, while the British Empire did not have a one-size-fits-all system of governance, the colonies were still governed. Yet we are told basically nothing about this. I'm sure sources talk about how Britain governed India, etc., and it's not orginal research to say "this is how Britain managed India" "this is how Britain managed parts of Canada" etc without trying to make connections. Or even Mercantilism is barely discussed, when there's entire books on the topic. I'm not arguing that we should be presenting the topic as if there was unified treatment of everything as a single thing, but in fact the reader is not really told that the empire was not governed uniformly, or even anything at all about that. We're given a timeline. But hardly any economics or even anything else. We shouldn't make pretend that it was a monoculture, but we should say that it wasn't. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever read a reliable source stating "the empire was not governed uniformly". I'm fairly certain the same is true of most, if not all, other historical empires, so the fault is really in those articles which misrepresent the past by presenting empires as uniform entities. That aside, what I think you are proposing - subject to not changing the line of argument again - would be an insertion of a massive amount of information that duplicates what is (rightly) covered in articles on individual countries. Even a summary would vastly bloat this article (to illustrate, see the large table here: Territorial evolution of the British Empire). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am suggesting that we should add a summary of content similar to what is at the other country articles to this. Have condensed sections, with the {{ main}} pointing the main articles. Don't try to give a false impression of a monoculture, but state how things were handled in different places, and if the sources don't draw overall connections, then don't do that. And it won't become bloated if what I've said needs to happen happens - History of the British Empire (currently a redirect) is spun off into another article, and the history stuff is condensed down into a single section. Currently, the politimilitary history has very heavy weight, and governance no weight, and economic factors such as mercantilism very little weight. Normally I'd just considered myself an idiot who knows little of FA, but I see that two FA writers whose opinions I respect above ( Buidhe and Nick-D in particular) are agreeing with me that this isn't fully comprehensive, so I'm standing by my delist. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- If this was moved to History of the British Empire, I would continue to support delisting. An article on a different topic from that it was originally nominated under should go through a FAC to ensure it meets the criteria on its new topic. Nick-D ( talk) 02:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am suggesting that we should add a summary of content similar to what is at the other country articles to this. Have condensed sections, with the {{ main}} pointing the main articles. Don't try to give a false impression of a monoculture, but state how things were handled in different places, and if the sources don't draw overall connections, then don't do that. And it won't become bloated if what I've said needs to happen happens - History of the British Empire (currently a redirect) is spun off into another article, and the history stuff is condensed down into a single section. Currently, the politimilitary history has very heavy weight, and governance no weight, and economic factors such as mercantilism very little weight. Normally I'd just considered myself an idiot who knows little of FA, but I see that two FA writers whose opinions I respect above ( Buidhe and Nick-D in particular) are agreeing with me that this isn't fully comprehensive, so I'm standing by my delist. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever read a reliable source stating "the empire was not governed uniformly". I'm fairly certain the same is true of most, if not all, other historical empires, so the fault is really in those articles which misrepresent the past by presenting empires as uniform entities. That aside, what I think you are proposing - subject to not changing the line of argument again - would be an insertion of a massive amount of information that duplicates what is (rightly) covered in articles on individual countries. Even a summary would vastly bloat this article (to illustrate, see the large table here: Territorial evolution of the British Empire). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, while the British Empire did not have a one-size-fits-all system of governance, the colonies were still governed. Yet we are told basically nothing about this. I'm sure sources talk about how Britain governed India, etc., and it's not orginal research to say "this is how Britain managed India" "this is how Britain managed parts of Canada" etc without trying to make connections. Or even Mercantilism is barely discussed, when there's entire books on the topic. I'm not arguing that we should be presenting the topic as if there was unified treatment of everything as a single thing, but in fact the reader is not really told that the empire was not governed uniformly, or even anything at all about that. We're given a timeline. But hardly any economics or even anything else. We shouldn't make pretend that it was a monoculture, but we should say that it wasn't. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reading through your comment I'm guessing you found it too much trouble to read the previous discussion on the point you've just made, or to bother to check the outcome of the recent RfC on this "History of the British Empire" proposal (it was dismissed rather firmly, partly because it would be OR). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)