- 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, Laser brain and Sarastro1—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: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 Gadsden Purchase half dollar
- 1.2 Style (Taylor Swift song)
- 1.3 Lion-class battleship
- 1.4 Round the Horne
- 1.5 Operation Hurricane
- 1.6 Antiochus XI Epiphanes
- 1.7 German torpedo boat Albatros
- 1.8 18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
- 1.9 Bishop John Carroll (statue)
- 1.10 Newberry Volcano
- 1.11 Máscara Dorada
- 1.12 National Front (UK)
- 1.13 Waterloo Bay massacre
- 1.14 SMS Lothringen
- 1.15 Western Area Command (RAAF)
- 1.16 Michael Collins (astronaut)
- 1.17 Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346
- 1.18 Al-Mu'tadid
- 1.19 Kim Clijsters
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 1257 Samalas eruption
- 2.2 Irakli Tsereteli
- 2.3 All Money Is Legal
- 2.4 Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)
- 2.5 History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army
- 2.6 British National (Overseas)
- 2.7 Deactivators
- 2.8 Hurricane Connie
- 2.9 Hermano Pule
- 2.10 Catalogue of Women
- 2.11 The Infinity Gauntlet
- 2.12 Solrad 1
- 2.13 Crater (constellation)
- 2.14 Hi-5 (Australian band)
- 2.15 The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)
- 2.16 Cardiff City F.C.
- 2.17 Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979
- 3 Featured article reviews
- 4 Featured article removal candidates
Nominations
Gadsden Purchase half dollar
This article is about... a coin that never was, important because President Hoover's veto of the proposal was long cited by presidents of both parties in turning down such proposals, and by the very fact that Hoover spent his first veto on this and was applauded by The Washington Post for it. Times change. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Style (Taylor Swift song)
This article is about the song that made me genuinely fall in love with Taylor Swift's works. Sure, she only writes about boys and her obsession with the perfect Prince Charming, but this song showcases her maturity as an artist, both musically (I love the instrumental so bad) and lyrically (she has realised love is not a dream); plus the sensual video.
While Swift is reticent to share the song's development and inspiration, I have tried my best to include interpretations of the song to shed light on what it is exactly about. It has undergone a Copy-Edit and passed GAN, and I believe it is now comprehensive and well-written to pass FAC. Looking forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Lion-class battleship
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. I've written the article in past tense, as did the bulk of my sources, since construction was actually begun, to avoid a multiplicity of "would have"s and its synonyms which I fear would have caused loss of consciousness in the readers from the monotony. As always I'm looking for any remaining infelicitous prose or unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Round the Horne
Round the Horne is a BBC radio comedy show from the 1960s. It broke boundaries and records, and helped, in its own small way, to alter the social scene of Britain. Even now, 50 years after its last episode was broadcast, it is still considered the best radio comedy series of all. It would be bona—nay, fantabulosa—to vada your dolly old eeks with comments (that's your actual palare, that is – when trolling meant something quite different). We've tried to keep it clean, but if you see a double entendre, please do whip it out. – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by Dudley
- Support. My queries on this first rate article were dealt with at PR. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Smerus
Support. I have spladgered my grommets seeking a quibble, but have been forced to chuck in the towel (even though that has left my grommets exposed). Congrats.--Smerus (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Smerus, for your input at PR and your support here. We are much indebted. Tim riley talk 10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:The_cast_of_Round_the_Horne.jpg: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself is historic - at the moment this isn't evidenced here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Swapped for a more appropriate one
- Thanks Nikkimaria, as always I'm much obliged to you. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Had minimal comments at the PR, and they were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Wehwalt. I fear the article must seem a touch odd to anyone not from these shores, and we are most grateful for the trouble you have taken in reviewing it. Tim riley talk 22:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Moise
Very well written and comprehensive. I hadn't heard about this show before but was happy to learn about it. I made a couple of really small edits. One more minor point for your consideration:
- There are a number of mentions throughout the article of the Hornblowers and the Fraser Hayes Four but inconsistent use of the/The and whether there are quotation marks around "The Hornblowers". Note that MOS:THEMUSIC recommends "the" (small t) but I know this is a contentious point and would never insist on this to anyone who has strong views that it should be otherwise—as long as each article as a whole is consistent in its usage. Cheers, thank you for the interesting article. Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks Moise - that's very good of you, and thanks for your time and comment. I've made the capitals on Hornblowers and Fraser Hayes, to lower case so they are all consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- No spotchecks carried out
- Newspapers
- The link to The Independent (William Cook 7 June 2006) goes to a google search page
- The Liverpool Echo (Joe Riley 18 May 2005) does not appear to need a subscription to view
- However, the Daily Telegraph (Charles Spencer 2 January 2004) does need the subscription template...
- ...while Spencer's 3 February DT article is shown without need for a subscrption
- Websites
- "Round and Round the Horne": link goes to wrong page
- "Mary Warnock": link goes to wrong page
- Apart from these minor issues, the references are impeccably presented. All other links are working correctly. The sources themselves are of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this extremely thorough review, BB. The points you mention shall be attended to pronto. Tim riley talk 11:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Operation Hurricane
This article is about Britain's first nuclear test, which was conducted in Western Australia in 1952. Britain became the third nuclear power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by CPA-5
I'll do this one tomrrow but could tell me which English you use for the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a specialist in Australian English so please correct me if I'm wrong.
- as little as 1 to 10 kilograms (2.2 to 22.0 lb) would is kilograms an Australian English word? Also the nought at the "22.0" isn't necessary.
- Vice Admiral Edward Evans-Lombe. It held its first meeting in May 1951. Hm the Britons use Vice-Admiral instead of Vice Admiral so do you Australians also use Vice-Admiral or just Vice Admiral?
- The yield was estimated at 25 kilotons of TNT (100 TJ). Shouldn't kilotons be kilotonnes?
- participants of the British nuclear testing program I saw that you used two kinda "program" one is British (programme) and the other one is American (program) which one do you Australians use?
- which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. which kinda tone do you mean? Long, short or tonne?
- When you're waving your arms around and talking about thousands, it doesn't matter. Bur I have replaced with "tonnes" for consistency.
- This included two 25-ton bulldozers same as above which kinda tone do you mean?
- Unlink Marshall Islands.
- the Robert A. Lovett, the Deputy Secretary of Defense "American Defense"
- Can you link Hermite Island, Trimouille Island, Alpha Island and Northwest Island?
- When queried by a Labour Party backbencher, Emrys Hughes suggest to add British between a and Labour.
- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[96][87] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
- their wooden bottoms were easily holed by coral outcrops.[86][85] Same as above.
- and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth.[90][72]
- I'm not sure but shouldn't the metric be first and then Imeprial/US style of measurement. Because it took place in Australia. I mean I don't mind if you use Imperial/US style of measurement instead of metric because it is about British history.
- a grader, tip trucks, portable generators, 1,800-litre (400 imp gal) water tanks Just let you know that Americans have their own gal style just let you know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by PM
I reviewed this at GAN, then again at Milhist ACR in 2017. I had little to nitpick about it then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Op_hurricane.jpg: per the template, please provide details of first publication. Same with File:Cleament_Attlee_and_Doc_Evatt.jpg, File:HMAS_Karangi.jpg, File:Operation_Hurricane_cloud.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Antiochus XI Epiphanes
- Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
When Alexander the Great died, his generals split his empire, and the Hellenistic period started. The Seleucid empire is probably the most intriguing polity that rose out of Macedon, but its weakness was the civil wars between its princes. The last civil war began when two rival half-brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX died in 96 and 95 BC respectively. For the next decade, Syria was split between six kings, five sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of the IX. This article is about Antiochus XI, the king who enjoyed the shortest reign, yet, like most members of his dynasty, his story is a pleasure to read, despite having only few coins and couple of short lines in the works of ancient historians mentioning him. I planned on bringing the articles of the six kings to FA, and, after almost a year and a half, this is the last article. It was copy-edited by a guild editor, and I made sure it satisfy the FA criteria. Cheers.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- All of the coins should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done
German torpedo boat Albatros
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and L293D (talk 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few months ago, but was archived when I was remiss in responding to reviewer's comments. We've addressed all of the earlier comments and believe that it meets the FAC comments. The article passed its source and image reviews in the previous nomination and, since nothing's changed there, we believe that it doesn't need them to be reviewed again, but we'll abide by the decision of the delegates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Support (as the reviewer noted in the nomination statement) - the only point I'd make with regard to my review on the first FAC is on the depth charges. You might just include a line stating something like "Albatros carried an unspecified number of depth charges for use against submarines." But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Added a line about depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5
Let's try to make it an FA-class this time.
- The book from Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto has a German title could someone be so kindly to add a translated title.
- mean draft of 3.65 meters (12 ft 0 in). Same in the infobox, personally I don't think it is necessary to use the "in".
- by 533-millimeter (21.0 in) tubes The nought isn't necessary.
That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for checking this out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from PM
I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and at its first run at FAC, and all my comments were addressed. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
- Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Making a second attempt to get this article promoted to FA standard, following a failed attempt last year. It is currently an A-Class article, having previously passed its GA review and being worked on by the Guild of Copyeditors. The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that fought in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over one third of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Why are File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png believed to be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Per the copyright section on the memorial website "Unless otherwise specified, anything published, hosted, appearing or accessible on this website (including without limitation information, data, text, images, databases, code, software, logos, publications, sound recordings, or videos) is material in which intellectual property is owned by or licensed to the Memorial." The actual photo article does not provide any additional information in regards to copyright, other than it is now in the public domain due to the copyright expired. If there is a more appropriate permission is required, please advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would read the situation as there is an "otherwise specified" in this case, which is that the images are PD. My question is around why they're PD, and thus whether the current tagging is correct. The context suggests that the photographer is likely non-Australian - perhaps British? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think that would be the issue, we do not have any further information about the photo or who took it. Personally, I believe it was probably an Japanese photographer. As far as I can tell, the photo does not appear on the IWM nor have I been able to find any information on who took it or who had prior copyright status.
- All we know, so it would seem, is that the AWM do not otherwise specify any information on the photo, implying - per their own blurb - that they either own or have previously licensed the photo, which they have now deemed to be in the public domain. The Aus Crown Copyright tag states that it would PD due to being created prior to 1969, we know this was created in Jan 1942. With that said, I do not know what would be a more correct PD tag for the photo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would read the situation as there is an "otherwise specified" in this case, which is that the images are PD. My question is around why they're PD, and thus whether the current tagging is correct. The context suggests that the photographer is likely non-Australian - perhaps British? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Per the copyright section on the memorial website "Unless otherwise specified, anything published, hosted, appearing or accessible on this website (including without limitation information, data, text, images, databases, code, software, logos, publications, sound recordings, or videos) is material in which intellectual property is owned by or licensed to the Memorial." The actual photo article does not provide any additional information in regards to copyright, other than it is now in the public domain due to the copyright expired. If there is a more appropriate permission is required, please advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest reaching out to AWM to see if they might have more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- I did the sources review for the earlier FAC and gave a clean bill of health. The same is true now; the sources are in my view of the appropriate quality and reliability and are presented immaculately.
- Spotchecks: I carried out a small sample of spotchecks from the very limited material available online. Ref 20: Can't find anything relevant in the cited London Gazette page. Other instances all check out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the spot checks and comment. In regards to ref 20, at the very bottom on the right hand side it discusses Dalby: "The undermentioned appts. are made: — Maj.-Gen. T. G. Dalby, C.B., D.S.O., ret. pay, to be Comdr. (temp.). 28th Aug. 1939" Confirming that he was retired and appointment commander. The Joslen reference specifically references him as commander, the Gazette was just to bring up the point of him being brought out of retirement (apparently a common thing for the 2nd Line Div commanders).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by PM
I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR last year, and have looked over the changes since then. It is in great shape, I have the following comments:
- in the lead, suggest "Following the Japanese beachhead being established" → "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- in the lead, when you say it wasn't reformed, this almost begs the question of how it would be reformed given it had been captured. Perhaps "regenerated in the United Kingdom"?
- I have went with reconstituted, but if you feel that regenerated works better I will switch it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Even better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have went with reconstituted, but if you feel that regenerated works better I will switch it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- in the lead, suggest internment instead of confinement
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- annexe is the noun form, not the verb
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- first line → first-line 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division, as it is a compound adjective in this case
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- suggest "The Imperial War Museums
commentobserve"- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- suggest "and eight 4.5-inch howitzers of similar vintage"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- for "anti-tank guns" link Anti-tank warfare
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- is there a possible link for Second BEF?
- No such article. I could thrown together a note to provide some additional context and maybe an OOB?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- A Note would be good, but I don't think a OOB is necessary. I'd never heard of a Second BEF before, and it sort of begs the question given there is no article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- No such article. I could thrown together a note to provide some additional context and maybe an OOB?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- link Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- suggest "administration forces" → "logistical troops"
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- suggest " I/5th Battalion of the Japanese Imperial Guards Division" as it reads a bit funny at present
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- link line of communication
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- the second (including the 2CR and 5RNR) is probably unnecessary
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- suggest "The 18th D
division was ordered to remain"- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- my comment about reforming applies here too
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- the Notes column of the GOC table would benefit from being centred, and the italics dropped
- Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Thank you for the review and comments. I believe I have addressed most of the points you have raised, and I have left a few comments above in reply to a couple of points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Bishop John Carroll (statue)
- Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about a prominent statue at Georgetown University of John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and the founder of the university. The bronze statue was created in 1912. This is the second FA nomination for this article, and Ian Rose has offered to waive the two-week waiting period. In my estimation, the article seems to be in good shape. Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I enjoyed this article, which is short but concise, and I will likely support, knowing the earlier nom was archived due to lack of reviews. As usual with Ergo's nominations, the writing is very good. My main quibble, and we have discussed this before, is the usage of links to google books, I especially don't like the "via Google Books" qualifier. Those links are unstable, and access varies between territories. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the language is a bit dated, which I hope is not an influence from older sources. Have fixed bits, eg "some believe" is now "A popular belief", but others remain, eg "attire", "sprawls", "Beneath his chair is", "celebratory pomp". Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- That appears to be none other than the consequence of my own writing style; admittedly it is a bit more formal than much of the writing found on Wikipedia, I don't know if I would go so far as to call it dated. Ergo Sum 05:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would certainly call it dated. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps "pomp" sounds a tad grandiose, but I fail to see what at all is dated about the words "attire," "sprawl," or "beneath." They're used in common parlance. Ergo Sum 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I opened my comments here saying I was probably going to support, and have always admired Ergo's very tight and sparse phrasing; from the three FAC articles of theirs I have read, there is no padding what-so-ever from this person (even on request), which to me indicates integrity to the sources. My suggestions above are suggestions only, have made trivial copyedits, am a Support either way. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Verification: A sample of spotchecks reveals no issues relating to verification or close paraphrasing
- External links: Links to sources are all checked and working
- Quality and reliability: In my view the sources meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.
On the question of google book links I share Ceoil's scepticism about their usefulness, but I don't object to them when they are included
Image review
- Per the discussion at the previous FAC, unless earlier publication can be found or some other reason for copyright expiration identified, those unveiling images should not be considered PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Just to be clear, are you saying that these two images, if their PD status cannot be determined, must be deleted (both from the article and the Commons)? Ergo Sum 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unless there is a rationale for fair use, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've contacted to owner to see if they would be willing to release the images through the OTRS system. Ergo Sum 05:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Newberry Volcano
This article is about the largest volcano in the Cascade arc. It's been a long time coming, but I think this is a comprehensive and well-written account of a major volcano. ceranthor 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by JJE
My peer review comments here were meant to be the equivalent of a FAC review, including point by point review against FAC criteria. They are resolved, so I'll support right away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ceranthor 16:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. In passing, I notice two words that look like BrE in anotherwise AmE article: "amphitheatre" and "centimetre". I'm not sure the mention of Rhode Island in the lead is especially helpful to an international readership. The ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. And I think it is usual to indicate among the online sources which ones are subscription only. But these are exceedingly minor points, and the article is readable and clear. It looks, to my inexpert eye, to be comprehensive, and is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for these detailed comments. I changed the BrE spellings and dropped the RI mention from the lead (but kept in the main body). Is there a systematic way to check to see if the articles are subscription only (perhaps incognito mode in Chrome would be useful for that)? Likewise, is there a source that lists ISBNs for all book sources that I could use, since Google Books / Amazon don't seem to include the hyphens for ISBNs. ceranthor 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't think of any systematic way of checking which sites are free and which need a subscription. Presumably you had to log in somewhere to view the latter? For those sites the {{subscription}} template can be added to the citation. If you are going to follow up the point about ISBNs (and I'm not entirely sure I'd be so thorough in your position, but don't say I said so) the way I get hyphens in 13-digit ISBNs is to go to https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter, input the un- or part-hyphenated ISBN to get the 10-digit version and then copy and paste the 10-digit number into the converter and lo - the 13 digit number appears, complete with hyphens. It's something of a fiddle-faddle, and there may be a better method if I only knew it. Tim riley talk 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:John_Strong_Newberry.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Sorry, can you clarify the 70 years ago bit of your comment? Per Commons:Hirtle_chart, I would think that this being published prior to 1924 would make it fall under PD. I changed to the standard US-PD template. ceranthor 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because you were using the {{PD-old}} template which refers to authors who died over 70 years ago. Now it's using the correct template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Spotchecks not carried out
- The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
- All links to sources have been tested and are working
- Formatting. There is a small inconsistency relating to the locations of publishers of book sources. In a couple of cases (Harris, Kienle & Wood) you give the location, in other cases you don't. Otherwise sources are presented uniformly and consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks, Brian, for noticing the location discrepancy. Is it generally better to include location for all book sources in your estimation? ceranthor 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to do it, but I don't insist if you feel otherwise. It's a very small point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Went ahead and removed the locations for consistency. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to do it, but I don't insist if you feel otherwise. It's a very small point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Máscara Dorada
This article is about a Mexican professional wrestler who has worked all over the world and is currently for the biggest wrestling company in the world. The article has been a Good Article for a while and I have been keeping up with improvements etc. over the years and I believe it is of Feature Article quality. I look forward to everyone's feedback and address any concerns that may be raised.` MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by ImmortalWizard
IMO, the best wrestling BLP in Wikipedia. He is my third favorite current Mexican star in WWE after Mysterio and Andrade. I will be giving my comments for the next few days. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's a shame we don't have pages for wrestling top ropes or middle ropes. Readers could get confused in the section Wrestling style and persona. Also, in WWE I heard commentators calling him the "king of the ropes", I don't have any sources for that but probably that's worth mentioning?
- I couldn't find that his name translates to "Golden Mask" in the source.
- Not all the Japanese and Spanish source titles are translated. It would be beneficially to recruit native editors to do the work.
- In general, I would say there are issues with WP:PROSELINE, which could be prevented.
- Can you provide a couple of examples that highlights this issue please? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here:
Examples
|
---|
|
- Keep in mind there are many more like this. This is a regular problem I see in PW pages, I thought it would best comment this on one of the best articles. I recommend avoiding too many specific dates, only the month will be fine in most case, unless to indicate the beginning of a new year or an important date. Phrases like, "the following week/month/year" would be helpful to create better prose. Otherwise, I am quite impressed the way in which this differentiates the fictional world of wrestling (in universe) from real world perspective. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- "The "Máscara Dorada" ring character was the first instance of a regular luchador being given a character based on a Mini-Estrella as he was introduced after CMLL introduced Mascarita Dorada in 2007." - I couldn't get it. Probably rephrase?
"after training with Gran Cochisse and El Satánico." source? I couldn't find this at ref 7. I cannot read ref 1 though.it is sourced in infobox, but it's best to include in body.- Again, I cannot read ref 1, but there is no mention of Plata II in ref 7. In ref 8 in the match cards, it says "Plata" which could possibly be the original one.
- "The title and hair wins indicated that CMLL had plans to elevate Metalik up their ranks." - how do we know?
- "The gimmick and the wrestler proved so successful, that in the fall of 2008, CMLL announced that they were creating a "Large" version of Mascarita Dorada. Traditionally the minis were often patterned after existing Luchadors, but this time the mini was created before the "Regular"." - citation needed.
- "that Poder Mexica had been stripped of the Mexican National Trios Championship title" this is first mention of the tag team. Probably wikilink (if page exists) and include the wrestlers of the team.
- "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. " is it a news outlet of CMLL?
- I am not sure if it is appropriate to link people's official twitter/facebook accounts in external links. At least I haven't seen that in any other BLPs (I am not a fan of this anyways).
- ImmortalWizard I believe I have either answered all questions or made the appropriate adjustments to the article, including prose line issues beyond the examples you so helpfully provided me with. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seems good. I will let you know if I have other issues. Other than some of the citation issues, you have addressed them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- ref 14 and 15 are formatted in Spanish.
- I would suggest having short citations for three of the offline sources with different page number citations: (Enciclopedia de las Mascaras 2007), (Madigan 2007), and (Ovaciones 2009).
- The last two achievements under CMLL needs citation.
- "Metalik made his debut the 205 Live show, defeating Drew Gulak." grammar
- "Máscara Dorada kept working mid-card tag team matches throughout the spring of 2008 with general success" probably needs citation? Also the term "mid-card" is not known to everyone
- "where the Revival claimed to be "Tag team purists" and as such objected to the Lucha House Party was allowed to compete as a "tag team" when there was three of them." I checked the sources but couldn't find this claims.
- "Over the years he has been given the nickname "El Rey de las Cuerdas" by Mexican commentators and fans, and the English version "The King of the Ropes" after joining WWE" ref 7 doesn't mention this.
I am forfeiting my review. For now, I have weak support. That is mainly because the article isn't fully checked yet. I would very much appreciate if the nominator and other editors leave feedback on my talk page, since this is the second ever FAC comments I have given. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
National Front (UK)
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg needs a stronger FUR, as does File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Verifiability: A sample of spotchecks revealed no issues of verifiability or close paraphrasing
- Quality and reliability: The main sources are the same as those for the previous archived FAC, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
- Formatting: There are no evident issues with formatting
- External links: All links to sources are working. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Waterloo Bay massacre
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community. I hope I have done it justice. The article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2017, and has been updated since then with various news reports regarding the memorialisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Midnightblueowl
- "The Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre refers to a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia which led to the deaths of a number of Aboriginal people, and forms part of the Australian frontier wars". This is quite a long sentence to have with little punctuation. I would recommend carving it up somehow, and perhaps take out "fatal" as you already refer to the deaths straight after. I'd also specify that the "settlers" were "European" or "British". Something like "The Waterloo Bay massacre, also known as the Elliston massacre, was a clash between European settlers and Aboriginal Australians that took place on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia in late May 1849. Part of the Australian frontier wars, it led to the deaths of several Aboriginal people." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks, a big improvement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The second paragraph in the lede really covers two distinct topics: the disputed number of those killed, and the ways in which the massacre has been memorialised. I would suggest dividing that paragraph in two because of this. "An attempt in the 1970s to build a..." could easily start a third paragraph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Split. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to move the sentence stating "Aboriginal people from the west coast of South Australia have oral history traditions that a large-scale massacre occurred." to before "In the 1920s and 1930s, several historians examined the archival record"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are some very thick paragraphs in this article. I would recommend dividing a few of them up; I think that would make it more 'reader-friendly' and enhance the likelihood that they would actually read through the whole thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Have split some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd also recommend a more thorough use of sourcing. In "Background" for example, the first paragraph has four sentences at its end, all referring to slightly different things, before a citation appears. Even if it entails some duplication of referencing, I'd ensure that every separate statement has a citation after it. Otherwise it can look a little like certain parts are simply unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have done a bit of this, but in some cases the page ranges aren't wide, so I'd just be repeating the same citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The "Recorded Events" section also could really be improved with some additional citations as there are ten sentences there before the first citation appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've split it and cited more closely, but it is only over three page range. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good use of images. Any chance that we could find another one for the "Later accounts of a massacre" section? Or a textbox of some kind? It's not essential, but I think it would improve the overall aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Found an image of Somerville and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "by Aboriginal people of the Nauo, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples." - "people... peoples". Bit repetitive. I'd change "Aboriginal people" to "Aboriginals", perhaps?
- Adjusted this. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "was speared and clubbed to death by Aboriginal people". Some folk tend to favour active voice, and although I'm not necessarily one of them, active voice might be better in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what would work here. Suggestion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "was unharmed and was found" - "was... was". Again, might be a way to avoid repetitious wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
All addressed so far, Midnightblueowl. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Source review by Factotem
A missing page number and a case of inconsistent information for one of the books listed in the bibliography that need to be addressed. Other than those, just a few take-it-or-leave-it quibbles that you can take or leave as you see fit.
- General
- Ref #4 (Foster & Nettleback 2012) missing page number;
- Very slack of me, have ordered the book again to check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Book held locally, so now added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref #28 (Thompson 1969) missing page number. This appears to be supporting the statement that Thompson published a book, which might not require a page number in itself, but the statement also goes into some specific details ("...which included the camp oven story and said that Geharty (spelled Gehirty in the book) was involved in rounding up Aboriginal people and driving them over the cliffs south of Elliston, resulting in 20 deaths") which does need page numbers if they are sourced to this book (it's not clear because another source is also cited for that statement);
- I've moved the Thompson citation, as it is just there to verify the book exists. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You cite Parish to support the statement that he wrote The Real West Coast: A Picture of a Rumour-Damaged Country, but cite some details of what Parish wrote to Foster, Hosking and Nettleback. Could the latter not be sourced to support the former? This jumped out at me because you're citing a book but don't provide a page number. Not an issue, just curious.
- No, the citation is there to verify that Parish wrote the book, the rest is what F, H & N say about its contents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Technical checks
- Petty pet peeve moment: I'm nowhere more OCD than when England is confused for the United Kingdom, as it is in the publisher location for Thompson's The Elliston Incident. Make of that what you will;
- I usually use UK, so have changed to that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Details for Foster & Nettleback's Out of the Silence: The History and Memory of South Australia's Frontier Wars in the biblography are from two different editions of the book. The GBook link previews the 256(?)-page paperback edition with ISBN 978-1-74305-039-2, but the ISBN you provide appears to relate to the 401-page e-book edition.
- Very sloppy of me. The copy I have been using is the paperback. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reliability and Quality
- Found nothing to suggest any issues.
- Comprehensiveness
- A Gbooks and JSTOR search for waterloo bay massacre did not reveal anything to suggest that relevant sources have been missed.
- Update: I noticed during the spotchecks that the ABC News article by Gage dated 19 May references research by the anthropologist Dr Tim Haines, commissioned by Elliston Council in setting up the memorial. Is there any reason why this isn't mentioned in the Authenticity and interpretations section? It doesn't look like it adds anything significantly new to what has already been written, but it does bring it up to date. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good catch, added and tweaked the lead to match the conclusions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That's all. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your source review, Factotem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Spotchecks
- Lingzhi's checks prompted me to do some of my own. Unfortunately, GBooks previews don't allow me access to the relevant chapter in the main source used, so my ability to complete a thorough check is somewhat limited to the news articles. I found nothing in these of major concern, though to nitpick somewhat, the ABC News article by Gage published 19 May does not appear to explicitly state that the memorial was established in May 2017;
- Changed to "it was reported" then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do have access to the first pages of Foster et al books, and found that in the Background, second para, you cite Foster & Nettelbeck (2012), but quite sure it should be Foster, Hosking & Nettelbeck (2001).
- Yes. How embarrassing... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's all now. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- With all issues I've identified now addressed, I can see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi
- There's a bit at the end about "one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims" that Foster et al attribute to someone named Pat Sumerling on pg. 71. Especially since this is presented as a direct quote, poor Pat will be unhappy that he/she (gender neutral name!) has not been given any credit on the huge forum of Wikipedia. Full attribution required.
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Healy said the bit about "narrative battlegrounds", not Foster et al. The latter cite the former. But it seems there's a Chris Healy and a JJ Healy... mmm... another book cites it to jj ... seems to be on page xv of {{cite book|last=Healy|first=John Joseph|title=Literature And Aborigine in Australia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qu4wAAAAIAAJ|year=1989|publisher=University of Queensland Press|isbn=978-0-7022-2150-7|ref=harv}}, if "Movement and Belonging: Lines, Places, and Spaces of Travel" has it right, and I assume it does...
- Will grab a local copy and check this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am beginning to wonder about close paraphrase. For example, Wikipedia has:
Foster et al. also interviewed Aboriginal people from the west coast on several occasions about the incident, with broad agreement in several aspects; the location near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs, and additionally, that not all of the people died, but the majority hid at the base of the cliff until the settlers left.
.. while Foster et all p. 71 has:
On several occasions the authors of this book have discussed memories of the Ellison incident with Indigenous people... the broad particulars coincide: the site near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs. We have heard one further detail: that not all of the people died, the majority hiding at the base of the cliff until the vigilantes left.
- Close paraphrasing addressed. Very sloppy on my part. Concerned if you've identified any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just started looking and I am finding matters that concern me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Portrait_of_James_Dugald_Somerville.jpg: if this is a news photo, why would it be Crown copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was donated to the State Library by News Limited, along with thousands of others, some of which are still in copyright. This one isn't though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- When did that happen and what were the terms of the donation? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- When did that happen and what were the terms of the donation? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk
- Interesting, to me especially in light of recent events involving Australian immigration policy... Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if Aboriginal people and white settlers could be linked at first mention outside the intro.
- Aboriginal Australians was already linked in the Background, added link to History of South Australia for European settlers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- You say British settlers in the intro, but white settlers in the article body. Isn't it best to be consistent? If you just say British, "white" would be superfluous.
- Have gone with European, as whilst they were mostly British, there were others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Part of the Australian frontier wars" SHouldn't this be mentioned early and linked somewhere in the article body too?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Horn and his men opened fire, and two Aboriginal people were killed and one was fatally wounded, with several more being captured." Why is this stated as fact, when it is apparently unknown? You could specify earlier in the section (besides just the title) if this is just the official record of the events.
- Have added this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I have addressed your comments thus far, FunkMonk. Thanks for taking a look at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "fanciful and sometimes wildly inaccurate fictionalising" Since this is not a very objective quote, the author should probably be attributed in-text.
- have reorganised this and attributed, see what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "written by Henry John Congreve" Can he be presented somehow? What was his occupation, and how come he was in a position to get this published?
- done, and discovered he has a Dictionary of Australian Biography entry, so redlinked as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "written by Ellen Liston" Likewise.
- done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
SMS Lothringen
This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships - I wrote the article originally in 2010 and then rewrote it with new sources last year, after which it passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). The ship had a relatively uneventful career, missing the Battle of Jutland owing to a badly-needed overhaul. Lothringen was briefly kept by the postwar Reichsmarine and converted into a parent ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by PM
This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:
- in the lead, perhaps mention that Lothringen is Alsace-Lorraine, which will be more familiar to most readers
- Good idea
- link knots in the lead
- Done
- I continue to find the mention of HMS Dreadnought out of chronological order to be rather odd. My view is it should be inserted at the chronologically relevant point, rather than in the design section where it presages future events
- For me, it makes more sense to include it where the article discusses the ship's design, since it has more relevance there, in my opinion, than it does to the ship's activity. I read it as kind of jarring to be talking about the training activities in December 1906, then talk about Dreadnought rendering ships like Lothringen obsolescent, and then go back to training activities.
- were the 17 cm guns in casemates, have gunshields or were they in open mounts? I assume the 8.8 cm guns were in open mounts?
- Clarified
- in the body, keel laying, ship launching and ship commissioning aren't linked
- Fixed
- link IX Corps (German Empire)
- Done
- "to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic" does this mean through the Channel or north of the UK?
- The former - clarified
- suggest "By achieving a rough equality of forces, it was hoped that the German Navy"
- Good point
- suggest "to retain eight pre-dreadnought battleships for coastal defense under Article 181, two of which would be in reserve."
- Yeah, that sounds better
That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- No spotchecks carried out
- The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Gerda
Thank you for another good one. Minor comments as I read:
Design
- I am not sure that we need the translation of Kaiserliche Marine again.
- A fair point.
... to 1907
- "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - the German Kaiser looks strange with an English possessive, - perhaps "emperor's"?
- I don't know - Wilhelm II is routinely described as the Kaiser in English.
1908 ...
- link Austro-Hungarian the first time (delink the next)?
- Good idea
- "Kaiser Wilhelm II's" - another strange looking mix of German and English, but no solution
World War I
- "Additionally, she was in poor condition by that time and required extensive repairs. She returned to service on 14 July and replaced Hessen in the straits in late August." - not sure if repair was done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good catch, clarified this.
Lead again as it came up in ERRORS: do we really need a link to battleship? Better avoid sea-of-blue, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Western Area Command (RAAF)
Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Source review by Factotem
Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- General
- William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.
- Technical checks
- ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;
- I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.
- Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;
- Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.
- I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?
- There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).
- External link checks
- Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems
- Reliability and quality of sources
- Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);
- I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.
- My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.
- Survey of sources for comprehensiveness
- I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.
That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM
This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments:
- covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
- Done.
- "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
- Done (well caught).
- suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
- On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
- is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
- Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
- Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I meant the ORBAT at the end. No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png: source link is dead. Same with File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png
- Updated links.
- File:An010702DeLaRue1941.jpg: if this was created by a newspaper, why would it be AustraliaGov?
- I was probably thinking of it being exhibited by a government institution (the state library) rather than its origin. Given it's a newspaper pic that the source website clearly states is out of copyright, I'd assume PD-Australia is the way to go?
- Yep, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was probably thinking of it being exhibited by a government institution (the state library) rather than its origin. Given it's a newspaper pic that the source website clearly states is out of copyright, I'd assume PD-Australia is the way to go?
Also the article is missing a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, never done a short description for any of "my" articles, but I'll have a go... Tks for looking things over, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
IR's armed forces articles have the considerable merit – from a reviewer's point of view – of brevity, but that doesn't mean they aren't comprehensive. This one is is a good read, well and widely referenced, with better illustrations than one might expect for an article about a fairly recent time, given copyright constraints (a prize might perhaps be offered for Senior Officer with Worst Shorts among the brass in the second photograph). The article is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks as always Tim -- the RAAF is quite well served by histories of its small units, especially the flying squadrons, but much less so when it comes to larger formations (wings, groups, commands) so for better or worse I think these types of WP articles are the most comprehensive one will readily find on their subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Michael Collins (astronaut)
This article is about Michael Collins, the third man on the crew of the Apollo 11 mission. He orbited the moon in his spacecraft, Columbia. As he passed around the far side of the Moon, he became the loneliest man alive, with the nearest two people thousands of miles away, and out of radio contact with both them and mission control back on Earth. Later he built the National Air and Space Museum, one of the world's great museums. The article has passed an A-Class review, which included source and image reviews. A previous FAC review was archived; it received only one review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Factotem
- Chidhood and education
- "...to Virginia (Stewart)..." Presumably her maiden name, but without the nee (or whatever) it popped out at me as a rather masculine original first name that was subsequently changed;
- "...but since World War II started soon after he was unable." I think there needs to be a comma after "after";
- "...which his father had graduated from in 1907 and his older brother in 1939." Reads a bit awkwardly to me. Consider "...from which his father and older brother had graduated in 1907 and 1939 respectively."?
- "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th of 527 cadets in the class of 1952, the same class as future fellow astronaut Ed White." No need to repeat 1952. Maybe, "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th in a class of 527 cadets which included the future fellow astronaut Ed White."?
- "...due to the large number of young but senior officers..." Senior officers on its own is absolutely no problem, but "young and senior" was just jarring to me. Maybe "high-ranking officers"?
- Military service
- "After entering the Air Force, Collins commenced basic flight training..." Not sure you need that introductory clause;
- "Collins met Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, his future wife, in an officers' mess." Consider, "Collins met his future wife, Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, in an officers' mess." so that there can be no stumbling over the concept that Boston, Masachusetts was his first wife?
- "After Collins was reassigned to the United States..." Do service personnel get reassigned to a country? I thought they get reassigned to a unit, but return to a country.
- Test pilot
- "...which included future astronauts Frank Borman..." False title, first of a few examples;
- Gemini 10
- "...to calibrate photos taken in space with calibrated equipment in a lab." Is "calibrated" necessary? Would "test equipment" or something similar eliminate the repetition of calibrate?
- Re-worded.
- "...to calibrate photos taken in space with calibrated equipment in a lab." Is "calibrated" necessary? Would "test equipment" or something similar eliminate the repetition of calibrate?
- Apollo 11
- "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for different scenarios including where the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late." Had to re-read this a few times to understand it. The repetition of different is not so elegant; does it need to be stated twice? The main thing I stumbled on, though, is the list of scenarios; I read "where" to refer to a location, which confused me. Might this be better written as "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for various scenarios, including situations in which the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late.";
- "...where they spent the first part of Earth-based portion of 21 days of quarantine before moving on to Houston." Earth-based portion? Can't it just be written as "...where they began 21 days of quarantine that ended after their arrival in Houston."?
- No. This was prompted by another editor's review. The days they spent in space on the way back also counted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I think the sentence needs attention. There appears to be a "the" or "their" missing before "Earth-based" and there are three cases of "of" in quick succession; there must be a more elegant way of writing it. Also, it may be just me, but it really reads as if Houston is somehow not considered Earth-based. Maybe you could be more explicit about the quarantine period beginning on their return journey from the moon. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. This was prompted by another editor's review. The days they spent in space on the way back also counted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs
- "...but this was tiny compared with the 6,000 public affairs staff at the United States Department of Defense." That seems rather a random comparison. Why is it relevant?
- Director of the National Air and Space Museum
- "Visitors saw Columbia in the main hall, Milestones of Flight, along with the Wright Flyer, the Spirit of St. Louis and Glamorous Glennis." Confused me because I initially read Milestones of Flight as another exhibit in the main hall, rather than the name of the main hall, which rendered the sentence non-sensical. Does Milestones of Flight need to be italicised, and would it be better reworded as "Visitors saw Columbia in the Milestones of Flight main hall...", as it (sort of) is in the image caption?
- Yes, the name of the hall was the Milestones of Flight Hall (today it is the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall); but I didn't want to give the impression that it was out the back. Rather, the "Gee Whiz" stuff is the first thing you saw. Originally it was displayed like in the top photograph, which was taken in 2010. Subsequently it was changed to that in the lower photograph, taken in 2016, which means that you can't see inside it any more. De-italicised, and changed the wording slightly. Relying on the images to create the correct impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Visitors saw Columbia in the main hall, Milestones of Flight, along with the Wright Flyer, the Spirit of St. Louis and Glamorous Glennis." Confused me because I initially read Milestones of Flight as another exhibit in the main hall, rather than the name of the main hall, which rendered the sentence non-sensical. Does Milestones of Flight need to be italicised, and would it be better reworded as "Visitors saw Columbia in the Milestones of Flight main hall...", as it (sort of) is in the image caption?
That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Primary sources: There is a lot of reliance on Collins's book Carrying the Fire, particularly in the earlier stages of the article – around half of the first 90 references are cited to this source. Relatively little use is made of other biographical material; perhaps little is available. Is there no other substantial work that could be called on? I note a biography is listed under Further reading, but that is apparently a children's book.
- After replacing a couple, I suppose the answer is maybe? The other sources do not go into the same detail he did. There are also some where he is giving his opinion, like that Dave Scott was his first choice, that are best suited as-is. I can see a couple more that I might be able to replace, do you think it is necessary? Kees08 (Talk) 03:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Quality and reliability: Apart from the slight concern about the extensive use of the Collins book, the sources appear to be of an appropriate standard of quality and reliability.
- Verification: I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. In general these checked out satisfactorily. I have reservations about one, below:
- Ref 10: "After the United States entered World War II, the family moved to Washington, D.C., where Collins attended St. Albans School and graduated in 1948". Source only notes that Collins was a St. Albans alumnus.
- External links
- All links to sources are working according to the external list checker tool
- Formatting
- Ref 55 appears to be in non-standard format, with link on page range
- Ref 100 lacks retrieval date
- 101, 102 and 103 ditto
- Ref 126: For consistency, "retrieved" rather than "accessed". I'm not sure of the value of this link
- Ref 136 lacks retrieval date
- Ref 145 ditto
- A couple of books in the list of references are out of alphabetic sequence: Carmichael and Shayler
Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Balon Greyjoy
- "worst four hours of his life in the right (co-pilot's) seat of a B-52 Stratofortress flicking switches while going through the initial stages of nicotine withdrawal."
- I would change "right (co-pilot's) seat" to just the "co-pilot's seat" and keep the link to the page. The role he was filling on the jet is more important than the physical seat he occupied (even though it is commonly associated with the co-pilot)
- I would remove "flicking switches" as it's not like that was his only responsibility; he was flying as a co-pilot, and his job included flicking switches, among other things.
- "Collins, Michael (1989). Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux."
Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per my previous review regarding this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The latest in my series of articles attempting to improve coverage of the Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital, Poitiers. After a recent A class review I am hopeful that it approaches FA standard, but no doubt it contains flaws and lacunae and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pinging the contributors to the ACR, who may be interested in re-commenting for FAC @Buidhe, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, AustralianRupert, and P. S. Burton: So lay on, and be damned he who first cries "Hold, enough". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Spotchecks not carried out
- Lacey: Robert Lacey wrote a series of books under the umbrella title of Great Tales from English History. You need to specify which particular volume this source refers to, and also to provide an ISBN.
- In general, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. There are no formatting issues.
Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Brianboulton, thank you for looking at the sources. Lacey: he did indeed. However, the 2008 the Folio Society edition consists of a selection from the three previous volumes, and so is not part of the series. It has no fuller nor more complete title, nor volume number. Nor does it have an ISBN; strange, but true. In support I offer the WorldCat entry with the note at the bottom "Selections from the work of the same title originally published in three volumes: London: Little, Brown, 2003-2006", and offering an OCLC, but no ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by PM
I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets all the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
Adding as I go... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- both weak and disorganised.— Do you need "both"?
- IMO yes. It adds a little emphasis to just how weak and disorganised the defences were, while deleting "both" makes it seem that one of the words is redundant. I will remove it if you prefer.
- As long as you've thought about it, I'm fine with whatever you decide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- IMO yes. It adds a little emphasis to just how weak and disorganised the defences were, while deleting "both" makes it seem that one of the words is redundant. I will remove it if you prefer.
- 160 miles (260 kilometres)... Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres (110,000,000 US quarts) So much wrong here. The first conversion is Imperial to metric, second is metric to US. Also, I'd query why US quart is more relevant to this article than the English quart? Also, what's wrong with using "millions" in your conversions instead of strings of zeroes?. Finally,
unless the US spelling is different,it should be "cargoes". Incidentally, Battle of Bergerac has the same problems in an identical sentence.
- As do three other FAs. I think that this sentence has been picked up in every ACR and FAC, or maybe it just feels like it. I have tended to go with the latest suggestion each time, and there is a TPW who keeps them consistent and/or how they prefer them.
- I'd suggest for the volume {{convert|100|l|impgal|abbr=off|order=flip|disp=preunit|million }}, which gives 22 million imperial gallons (100 million litres) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am honestly not that bothered. I do wish that the various reviewers were consistent, but I realise that this is Wikipedia. I count my blessings that I only get one opinion per review. I have a preference for all the zeros, as a way of preventing, possibly, a reader from glossing over how humongous a figure this was for the time. I think that I started with gallons, or maybe pints, converted to litres. What would you think of a three way conversion? (PS Three of my five paper dictionaries accept "cargos" as a British English plaural; I can't find an on line one that doesn't. That said, I am happy to go with 'cargoes' and will amend the other FAs accordingly.)
- If you prefer the zeroes, that's fine with me, it's just a personal style preference, not a "must do". For the wine, the key thing is that the order must be imperial->metric, to be consistent with the other conversions. I suppose you could have a three-way conversion, although I wouldn't bother, myself. Chambers has "cargoes", but if you can justify the alternative spelling, obviously you can use it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am honestly not that bothered. I do wish that the various reviewers were consistent, but I realise that this is Wikipedia. I count my blessings that I only get one opinion per review. I have a preference for all the zeros, as a way of preventing, possibly, a reader from glossing over how humongous a figure this was for the time. I think that I started with gallons, or maybe pints, converted to litres. What would you think of a three way conversion? (PS Three of my five paper dictionaries accept "cargos" as a British English plaural; I can't find an on line one that doesn't. That said, I am happy to go with 'cargoes' and will amend the other FAs accordingly.)
- I've fixed the Bergerac article, since that's through FAC. If you prefer the strings of zeroes in that article, you can just remove the last two parameters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- It had sailed but never landed, after the fleet was scattered in a storm.— perhaps better as The fleet had sailed, but was scattered in a storm and never reached its destination
- Hmm. Yes, It doesn't work how it is. How about "It embarked on the English fleet, but the ships were scattered in a storm." (The never landed, never arrived bits are probably redundant.)
- Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Yes, It doesn't work how it is. How about "It embarked on the English fleet, but the ships were scattered in a storm." (The never landed, never arrived bits are probably redundant.)
Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for looking at this. Resonses to your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't really see any issues in the rest of the text, so I'll change to support above, on the assumption that the conversion order will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, thanks for the flexibility. I have gone with pints to litres, numerals, and cargoes. I will standardise thia across the other FAs. CPA-5, your input would be valued here. Note Jim's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm oh hello Gog, sure, why not. Personally I disagree about the imperial pints thing. First yes Britons may uses imperial pints instead of litres but that doesn't mean that the American pints should be ignored. The American pints are in general smaller than the British pints, so. Why shouldn't it be in the article if we change U.S. quarts to imperial pints? CPA-5 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, thanks for the flexibility. I have gone with pints to litres, numerals, and cargoes. I will standardise thia across the other FAs. CPA-5, your input would be valued here. Note Jim's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't really see any issues in the rest of the text, so I'll change to support above, on the assumption that the conversion order will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5, good to see you back in action. How would you feel about:
Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Gog Hmm the word cargoes looks a little odd to me especially because it is tottaly the same in American English and British English it is even seen as an alternative. But if you really wanna change cargos into cargoes then it's fine IMO. Second I'll give Jim a point that an imperial unit should be first, because it'd be a little bit odd to see a metric unit before an imperial one but in the rest of the lead it is first the imperial unit instead of the metric one. Third IMO, it is weird to see two different non-metric units (imperial pints and U.S. quarts). I mean IMO if we have to go with quarts then I'd say: "Among their cargoes were over 100,000,000 imperial quarts (110,000,000 litres; 120,000,000 US quarts) of wine." if we have to go with pints then it should be: "Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.". Both are correct but IMO both shouldn't be mixed because it can confuse the readers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Cargoes is the standard British English spelling. Cargos is US English. Some more modern dictionaries say that cargos is acceptable for British English, but the consensus is for cargoes.
- What I was trying to do was go with the most appropriate and common unit for each reader. So imperial quarts are out; few British English readers will even have heard of them. (It would be worse than using decilitres rather than litres.) So my preference, and something Jim would be ok with, would be to just use pints and litres, as currently in the article. Or we could use the common units for each reader: pints, litres, US quarts - as above. Or we could go with:
- Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine.
- What would your preference be?
- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I think we can use "imperial pints, litres and US pints", instead of "imperial pints, litres and US quarts". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- So amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack
A great read, and not a single nitpick. However, I'm wondering if you have a general idea how to organize the content of the Hundred years war into articles? This article is very specialized. Much of it is context and aftermath, and only three paragraphs are on the Chevauchée itself. So I wonder why a separate article is needed here after all? What is the advantage compared with an article with a slightly larger scope? For an article as specialized as this, I would also expect to have more detail on the topic of the article, the Chevauchée, itself. Also, I would expect something about the historic sources. How much do we know, and from which sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jens, thanks for the feedback. This article is one of a series of five on the Hundred Years' War in Gascony 1345-46. The other four have passed FAC during the past two months. The question of the name came up at ACR, in the context of the article "taking too long to get to the point". I responded "I am happy to rename the article if you think that is called for. Several RSs refer to the whole post Siege of Aiguillon period under the catch all title of Lancaster's chevauchee, but if that misleads a reader then it can be changed." The reviewer didn't come back on this point, so nothing was changed.
- The sources are more or less evenly split, and are not always internally consistent, as to whether the whole period, August-December, in Gascony should be referred to as Lancaster's chevauchee. Taking this wider definition, the article has eight paragraphs directly relating to it. I prefer the existing title, but as above "if that misleads a reader then it can be changed".
- The question of the sources has also come up in an earlier FAC of a Gascon front article - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1#Comments by Constantine for the discussion and conclusion. (I am not against discussion of sources when it is really necessary for a reader, eg see the first section of Battle of Cape Ecnomus, currently in ACR, or the second paragraph of Battle of Bergerac#Battle, FACed a week ago, but it is rarely considered necessary for military history articles.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- All right, I actually didn't get that, I assumed that the "French offensive" and "Anglo-Gascon offensive" sections are part the background and context, as they are excluded by the article's title and the definition given in the first sentence. I see the problem that the scope of the article does not become clear. And yes, I would think of a title that actually reflects the full content of the article. If such a title could be found that would be ideal, although I understand that the current title may sound much better. Alternatively, it might already get a bit clearer if you would rename the section "Gascony" in something containing the words "Background" or "Context", to be clear where the background stops and the actual article content starts? Also, the first sentence should imho make clear what the scope of the article is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jens I have renamed and re-levelled some sections; what do you think? And how does the following sound as a lead?
Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is the name given to a series of offensives directed by Henry, Earl of Lancaster, in south western France during autumn 1346, as a part of the Hundred Years' War.
The year had started with a "huge" French army under John, Duke of Normandy, the French king's son and heir, besieging the strategically important town of Aiguillon in Gascony. Lancaster refused battle and harassed the French supply lines while preventing Aiguillon from being blockaded. After a five-month siege the French were ordered north to confront the main English army, which on 12 July had landed in Normandy under Edward III of England and commenced the Crécy campaign.
This left the French defences in the south west both weak and disorganised. Lancaster took advantage by launching offensives into Quercy and the Bazadais and himself leading a third force on a large-scale mounted raid (a chevauchée) between 12 September and 31 October 1346. All three offensives were successful, with Lancaster's chevauchée, of approximately 2,000 English and Gascon soldiers, meeting no effective resistance from the French, penetrating 160 miles (260 kilometres) north and storming the rich city of Poitiers. His force then burnt and looted large areas of Saintonge, Aunis and Poitou, capturing numerous towns, castles and smaller fortified places as they went. The offensives completely disrupted the French defences and shifted the focus of the fighting from the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders.
- Jens Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, the sections are much clearer now. The lead you proposed reads very good, and assuming that the term "Lancaster's chevauchée" has been used somewhere to refer to the whole series of initiatives (as the article does), it should be totally fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jens Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
SupportComments from Tim riley
Another excellent article in the continuing series. I shall certainly be supporting, but first I offer a few very minor suggestions about the prose:
- "commenced the Crécy campaign" – merely a stylistic point: Fowler writes that "commence" is a word used by the sort of writers who prefer "ere" and "save" to "before" and "except" (and I never see the verb without thinking of a Noël Coward line: "I just can't abide the word 'testicles'. It's smug and refined like 'commence' and 'serviette' and 'haemorrhoids'. When in doubt always turn to the good old Anglo-Saxon words".)
- Apart from "ere" I am guilty of all of those. With deliberate aforethought. If you think that "commence" is wrong or infelicitous, feel free to change it with my blessing, but I prefer it.
- "The duty levied by the Crown" – this will probably be correctly read by all readers, but just to be on the safe side I think I'd add "English" before "Crown".
- Done.
- "Bordeaux … had a population … and Bordeaux was possibly richer" – I don't think you need the second "Bordeaux".
- "most significant landholders" – what did they signify? A pity to use a word with a precise meaning as a mere synonym of "important".
- Exactly the same error as I made in Gascon campaign of 1345, and pointed out by you in just the same way. Corrected.
- "Fortifications were also constructed at transport choke points, to collect tolls and to restrict military passage, and fortified towns grew up alongside all bridges and most fords over the many rivers in the region." – 34 words in this sentence, including three conjunctions. I think it would flow more smoothly if you made the second "and" a semicolon.
- Fair point. Done. And on several other FAs.
- "relatively frequent intervals" – relative to what?
- Umm. Yes. Corrected.
- "enormously superior" and "achieved complete strategic surprise" – having these phrases in quotation marks without saying in the text whom you are quoting seems odd to me. If you are using the punctuation to avoid the charge of plagiarism I don't think you need worry for such short phrases, and if you want to make the point that they are the ipsissima verba of some great authority it would be a kindness to say who that great authority is, as you do for the quote in the penultimate para of the Anglo-Gascon offensive section.
- They are indeed the words of great authorities. I am now torn between blighting the flow of my prose by inserting their names, or removing the quotation marks and looking as if I haven't read MOS:WTW. I shall go for the second option.
- "resistance due to lack of troops" – you are trying to say that the struggle, not the resistance, was due to lack of troops etc, but this doesn't say that, even if you think (wrongly in my view) that "due to" is a compound pronoun. "Because of" is wanted here, I should say.
- I am; it isn't; it is.
- "Lancaster personally led 1,000 men" – could he have led them impersonally?
- One to leave for the philosophers I think. Changed.
Nothing of any great importance there, but I hope these few suggestions are of use. I'll look in again shortly. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good morning Tim. I cannot express my appreciation for your efforts to keep what I shall very loosely term my use of English within bounds. All of your points above have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support promotion to FA. Very readable, all information duly cited from a range of sources, splendidly illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. As enjoyable to review as its predecessors in the series. I look forward to further instalments. Tim riley talk 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentSupport by CPA-5
Just found something.
- heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders. "80 kilometres" isn't necessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Gah! Apologies. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: You just removed the wrong "80 kilometres". Don't worry I'll take this one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was a subsequent edit clash, but I have fixed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Ehm, I think there is a little misunderstanding here. You re-added the "80 kilometres" in the heart of Gascony to 50 miles (80 kilometres) or more beyond its borders. which I just removed and should been removed. Because the second "80 kilometres" (which I just removed) isn't necessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was a subsequent edit clash, but I have fixed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Gah! Apologies. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Al-Mu'tadid
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about one of the most (and virtually the last) capable Abbasid caliphs, and definitely an interesting figure: passionate about "women and buildings", known for his cruel and ingenious punishments and fiscal stringency, and the greatest Abbasid warrior-caliph. During his decade-long rule, by virtue of constant campaigning and adroit diplomacy he managed to stabilize the state and restore many lost territories. His reign also saw the culmination of the dominance of the Turkish military, but strangely also the start of the emergence to power of the secretarial bureaucracy. During his reign (and that of al-Muktafi, which was essentially a coda to al-Mu'tadid's) the Abbasids were truly for the last time an imperial power to be reckoned with. I've worked on this article on and off since 2013, gathering material from many sources. It passed the MILHIST ACR back in 2016, and has seen various mostly minor additions and copyedits (lately a GOCE copyedit by User:Gog the Mild) since. I am confident that the article is fairly comprehensive, but any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest bumping up all maps to at least 1.3
- File:Iraq_Ninth_Century.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sources added by the map author Constantine ✍ 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Quality and reliability
- The sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.
- Verification
- A sample of spotchecks reveals no evident problems of verification or close paraphrasing
- Formatting
- Is there a reason for the capitalization of Brill in the list of sources (Kennedy 2003, Sobernheim and Zetterstéen)? Otherwise the formatting is uniform and consistent.
Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Brill, IIRC, I had found this capitalized when I first started using these sources, and copied it over to the various articles after. Changed now. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by Gog the Mild
- One of the maps lacks alt text.
- External links and the other standard FAC checks are fine.
- There are no duplicate links.
- I copy edited this for GoCE, which needed very little doing.
- While copy editing I brought up several non-copy edit issues on the talk page, all of which have been satisfactorily addressed.
So, for me, the article is one alt text away from a support.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, rather embarrassing, that. Fixed. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have done similar. And that was all I could find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk
- Interesting we are getting so many nominations about the Arab caliphates lately. No collusion? I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "al-Mutawakkil was murdered" Do we know by who?
- Added.
- "the elite Turkish troops" Link to something?
- I've linked to Turkic peoples with my previous change, and moved the link to the ghilman slave-soldiers up. Ideally there should be an article about "Turks/Turkish slave-soldiers in the Abbasid Caliphate" eventually..
- Abbasid should be linked at first mention outside the intro too.
- Done.
- I wonder if the ethnicity of Ahmad ibn Tulun should be mentioned, as the rest of the paragraph that mentions him also deals with other non-Arab rebellion in the Caliphate. Maybe also mention who were Persians, and that the Zanj were African, but perhaps not if the sources don't dwell on the ethnic issue.
- You are right that this is important, especially since Ibn Tulun was precisely from this group of Turkish soldiers who came to dominate power, and a herald of future developments..
- "a keen horseman and took care to inspect both his troops and their mounts in person" Who said this, and does it need to be a quote rather than paraphrasis?
- I've tried to rephrase.
- "Eventually, in 889, Abu'l-Abbas was arrested and put in prison on his father's order" Do we know why?
- Not known. As stated right before, the reason why the relationship between the two suddenly deteriorated is a mystery..
- Just something you probably can't do anything about, but it is a bit confusing that the subject is referred to by (three?) different names as the article progresses. Especially since some of the names of different rulers are somewhat similar, I had to read some paragraphs over a few times. Not sure what could be done about this, since it is probably not a good idea to refer to him by a single name throughout.
- The only viable alternative would be to refer to him by his regnal name throughout, but even in the secondary literature, when his early life is described, the kunya is very frequently used..
- "[t]he role of 'ghazī caliph" I wonder if this term should be used and explained before the quote.
- Rephrased and explained right before the quote.
- "Qatr al-Nada died soon after the wedding" Do we know why?
- Al-Tabari merely mentions that she died ("On Rajab 7, 287 (July 8, 900) al-Mu`tadid's wife, the daughter of Khumarawayh b. Alimad b. Tulun, died and was buried in the castle of al-Rusafah.", without further comment, and I haven't been able to find anything else on this..
- Hi FunkMonk! On the nomination, on my part it is simply that after six years I feel I know the topic and its wider context well enough to be certain that I have not overlooked any major aspects (and Ro4444, who has an even better knowledge of the period and the primary sources, has confirmed this). I've literally been learning about the early Muslim world as I've been writing articles for WP. I've addressed the points you raised above. Anything else? Anything that can be improved, apart from and beyond FAC requirements? Constantine ✍ 16:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll read the rest of the article soon. Looks spiffy so far! FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looking forward to the rest of your suggestions. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll read the rest of the article soon. Looks spiffy so far! FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- "with Amr mobilizing the anti-Alid sentiments" You have not presented or linked the Alids until this point in the article body.
- "with Amr mobilizing" Amr hasn't been linked or presented until this point either. Perhaps some text was moved around at some point without changing the order of inks.
- "made contact with the Kutama Berbers" You could state where, it would be pretty far from all formerly mentioned events.
Support Comments from Tim riley
Excellent article. Two very minor points about the prose:
- The article is written in BrE, it appears ("adviser" "centre", "maximise", "rumours") but there is an inconsistency in ise/ize endings: "maximise" but "characterized", "legitimize", "militarized" etc. If you prefer the "ize" form – unusual in BrE these days, but by no means wrong – note that the Oxford English Dictionary treats "maximize" similarly to the other "ize" words.
- Fixed, thanks for catching that.
- "any of his supporters who Abu'l-Abbas could lay his hands on" – this could do with polishing, it seems to me – "who" should be "whom" and "could lay his hands on" seems a touch informal for an encyclopaedia.
- Rewritten, please have a look.
Those two small quibbles apart I have no suggestions and I look forward to supporting the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 08:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Tim riley, thanks for taking the time to review this. If there are any other comments or suggestions, quite beyond the requirements of FA, for the improvement of the article, please feel free to let me know. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Highly readable, well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated and, as far as a layman can tell, comprehensive. Enjoyable and instructive: just what a Wikipedia FA should be. – Tim riley talk 19:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kim Clijsters
- Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Kim Clijsters, the first Belgian tennis player to hold the world No. 1 ranking. Active from 1997–2012, Clijsters has been ranked as the 14th greatest women's tennis player in the Open Era. She is perhaps most famous for retiring at the age of 23, only to come back and become one of the few players to win a Grand Slam singles title as a mother.
I have re-written the entire article over the past six months, and it has passed its GA review. I have written eight other GAs for the Tennis WikiProject, but this is the one I have spent the most time on. There are two other tennis FAs (Milos Raonic and the 1877 Wimbledon Championship). If promoted, the article would be just the eighth Women's sport biography FA, the first since 2014, and by far the most notable of the group. I am hoping to have this article ready to be a TFA by June 8th, and I recognize the window for that opportunity is closing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I added alt text for all of the images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Hmlarson
- Overall
- This is a very good article. It is really well-written and sourced. Nice work! Here are a few initial comments. I'll add some more as I go along.
- Lead
- "Clijsters is a former world No. 1 in both singles and doubles..." Consider changing to something like: Clijsters ranked No.1 in the world in singles from ____ to ____ and doubles from _____ to _____, if possible.
- This won't work because she had four brief separate reigns at No. 1 across three non-consecutive years. Nonetheless, I added in the next paragraph that she first became No. 1 in 2003, and the third paragraph already mentions she becomes No. 1 again in 2011. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Clijsters played in an era where her primary rivals..." Consider changing to something like: Clisjsters competed professionally from ____ to ___ in an era where her primary rivals...
- I added the years. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Born to athletic parents with backgrounds in professional football and gymnastics, Clijsters was renowned for her own athleticism." Consider removing the first part of the sentence before the comma in the lead and "her own". It detracts from her accomplishments + is really more supporting info (not primary).
- I agree. I split this sentence into two to separate each point, and removed "own". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Other work
- Coaching + Broadcasting career
- Her coaching and broadcasting careers seems worthy of inclusion for future expansion: ref 1 ref 2 ref 3 ref 4
- I added both of these into her "Personal life" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nonprofit Ten4Kim
- Consider for inclusion.
- I added this as well as SOS into her "Personal life" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Entrepreneur
- Her website says she is an entrepreneur. Is that related to her tennis school in Belgium? ref 1
- I think so, I can't think of anything else. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Awards
- Consider bolding the subheaders.
- Good idea. Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coaches
- Link 2010 US Open in this section and image captions
- Link 2002 US Open in this section
- Link 2005 US Open in this section and image caption
- Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personal life
- Link 2011 Australian Open
- Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Figureskatingfan
- Overall
Very well-done and thorough article about an important figure in women's tennis. I'm not at all familiar with tennis, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances, but I was able to come up with a few picky points.
- 2003...
- Clijsters had a historic season in 2003. The word "historic" feels pidgeony to me. I suggest that you find a source that expresses the same or a similar sentiment, and if not, that you remove it.
- I changed it to "annus mirabilis", the term used in the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hopman Cup
- Is it necessary to explain how this tournament is run? You don't make similar explanations for other tournaments like Wimbledon. If we can click on the link to find that information about Wimbledon, we can do the same for the Hopman Cup, right?
- I wanted to explain the format because as a team competition, it's relatively complicated compared to the individual tournaments. I wouldn't expect even a regular tennis fan to be familiar with it, and I feel like you need to understand the format for the next paragraph to make any sense. I don't explain individual tournaments because aside they all have the same standard bracket format, which is also much simpler. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Clijsters vs. Henin
- Clijsters's biggest rival was Justine Henin, who grew up in the French-speaking part of Belgium. They have been regarded as having little in common except their nationality and their relationship has varied over time. I don't see either statement directly supported by ref 172. Of course, they can be inferred by the SMH article, but I'm not sure that's enough for a FA. I suggest changing the wording to better reflect the SMH source, or any other that discusses the rivalry.
- I'm taking the first part of the second sentence from "despite the fact the Belgians are indivisible in the public estimation in their homeland, sometimes it seems that all they have in common is their nationality." Was that what you were concerned about? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice job! I'm ready to support when the above points are addressed, or when you explain why they shouldn't change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Figureskatingfan! I addressed all of your comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome, my pleasure. I love reviewing articles because I get to read about stuff I know nothing about. I'm satisfied with your response above about the Hopman Cup; it makes total sense. Nice job; I will now SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Quality and reliability: The article is amply referenced, using a mixture of local and national news reports, on and offline magazine articles, some dedicated tennis websites, and major broadcasters such as BBC and CNN. Overall the mix is much what I would expect to find in a major tennis article, and in my view meets the required standards of quality and reliability.
- Verification: Spotchecks – I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. Mostly these checked out, but a few raise minor issues:
- Ref 15 - ARTICLE: "She won two junior Grand Slam doubles titles, the French Open with Jelena Dokic and the US Open with Eva Dyrberg". SOURCE: The US Open victory with Dyrberg is not mentioned in the source
- I added the source from the next sentence to this one as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 102 - ARTICLE: "Clijsters entered 2007 intending to retire at the end of the season, but only played in five tournaments due to injuries." SOURCE: No mention of restricting her appearances to five, or of other factors that limited her appearances, e.g. marriage.
- I moved the source to clarify it is just for the first part of the sentence, added the book source to the end of the sentence, and re-worded the second part to clarify that she only ended up playing five tournaments (which wasn't her plan). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 142 - ARTICLE: "She needed to retire from a fourth round match at the Indian Wells Open due to a shoulder injury. Then, as a result of a right ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April, the French Open was the only clay court event she entered. At the second Grand Slam tournament of the year, she was upset in the second round by No. 114 Arantxa Rus after failing to convert two match points in the second set." SOURCE: The information relating to Indian Wells is not covered in the source.
- Added the book as a source. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- External links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool.
- Formatting: A few issues:
- There is a general issue around italicisation of organisations such as ESPN, CNN, CBC, ABC, Reuters and BBC (there may be others). You have used the parameter "website=" in the template, but these organisations are not websites, they are the publishers of the website and should not be in italics. In such cases use the parameter "publisher=", which will automatically de-italicise.
- Fixed these instances, as well as others (ITF Tennis, WTA Tennis, Australian Open, US Open, International Tennis Hall of Fame, etc.). I believe I understand the difference now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the New York Times articles are only available on subscription. You need to check these and where appropriate add the (subscription required) template.
- I didn't need a subscription to access any of them (since they give you 5 free articles per month). Should I tag all of them anyway? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 10: state tha the source language is French
- Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 81: you should clarify that the publication is the New York Sun, not to be confused with the British tabloid.
- Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 214 Bodo 2010 lacks page reference. What is the significance of the added date?
- The chapters in the book are each denoted with a different date. Nonetheless, I replaced the date with the number of the chapter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 246: source article title missing
- Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 249: What does "bekroningen" signify?
- It means "awards", and it's a list of awards in the appendix. I replaced it with "appendix" instead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (For the purposes of clarification I did the review, not the responses)
- Thanks, Brianboulton! I replied to all of your comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Ceranthor
Will post comments ASAP. Long article, so lots to read! :) ceranthor 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead
- "Clijsters was a world No. 1 in both singles and doubles, having once held both rankings simultaneously." - think it would be worthwhile mentioning when she held both
- Added 2003, and removed "2003" from when she first attained the No. 1 ranking in the next paragraph to avoid too many 2003s. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- " were compatriot Justine Henin and 23-time Grand Slam singles champion Serena Williams." - not sure you have to include the number of times Serena won Grand Slams; not necessary IMO
- I wanted to say "compatriot Justine Henin and Serena Williams, one of the greatest players of all-time", but I feel like that is too subjective for the lead. I felt like writing "23-time Grand Slam singles champion" is a more objective way to say something along the same lines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Coming from a country with limited success in men's or women's tennis, she" - obviously it's implied that you're talking about Clijsters, but since you refer to three female-identifying players in the previous sentence I'd use Clijsters instead of "she" here
- Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Professional career
- "Clijsters continued to excel at the ITF level, winning four more titles within the next year, two in each of singles and doubles.[9][17]" - "two in each of" is wordy; one or two of these words need to be cut but not totally sure which
- Simplified to "two in both" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Clijsters began 1999 ranked No. 420 in singles.[18]" - in which ranking list, exactly?
- Changed to "Clijsters began 1999 with a WTA singles ranking of No. 420 in the world". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "entering the main draw as a lucky loser after losing in the final round of qualifying." - is "lucky loser" an idiom or an actual tennis term? I have never heard it used, but if it's an idiom it should be rephrased because I think they should be avoided in encyclopedia articles
- It is a tennis term, referring to a player who makes the main draw after losing in qualifying due to a different player in the main draw withdrawing from the tournament after qualifying already began. I added the wikilink to the lucky loser page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "After barely getting a spot in the qualifying draw," - wait, why is this? Elaborate?
- Changed to "After barely having a high enough ranking to get into the qualifying draw" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in each of singles and doubles.[18]" - same note as above
- I wanted to leave the year out here, since it is in the "2003" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, should have clarified; I meant the "in each of singles and doubles." ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh okay, changed to "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in singles or doubles, achieving both feats in August." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, should have clarified; I meant the "in each of singles and doubles." ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to leave the year out here, since it is in the "2003" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "She extended her tour win streak to 17 matches—all of which without dropping a set[17]" - don't need the "of which" I don't think
- Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "she needed to retire from that match as well after twisting her ankle down a break in the third set " - is "down" meant to be "during?"
- "Up a break" or "down a break" are tennis terms referring to when one player has more (or less) breaks of serve than the other player during a set. Practically, it indicates who is in position to win the set (since players are always expected to win their own service games). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I changed it to "after twisting her ankle while down a break in the third set". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The other sections looked fine. This is a well-written and engaging article, and I'll be happy to support it per 1a once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ceranthor! I replied to each comment above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: All fine except the one I responded to above. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I made the change above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: All fine except the one I responded to above. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Older nominations
1257 Samalas eruption
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about a large, recently discovered volcanic eruption in Indonesia that took place in 1257. Actually, the existence of this eruption was known since the 1980s-1990s when traces of a large volcanic event - one of the largest in the last 10,000 years - were discovered in ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica but only in 2013 did a group of researchers specifically link it to the Rinjani volcano, thanks to historical records which also give the name Samalas. This eruption is considered to be responsible both for short term climate change and also potentially for the onset of the Little Ice Age - the latter point especially has gained it a lot of attention in the research community and the popular press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Two postscripts:
- While not part of the FAC proper, there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about sources and content that reviewers might be interested in.
- I realize that we don't like weasel words, but there ain't a clear cut scientific consensus that 1257 Samalas eruption caused the Little Ice Age. Yes, the idea has strong support in the sources I've seen but it's not (yet) as widely agreed upon as, say, "present-day global warming is man-made". Hence why I formulated it as a "it is possible" statement.
- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportComments from Jim
Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not keen on red links in the lead. Not a big deal, but perhaps a one-sentence stub for these implicitly notable topics would be worthwhile?
- Maybe, but I am not too keen of microstubs especially since it's not technically a FAC requirement as far as I know. Anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think we link countries now, especially as you haven’t been consistent on this; looks a bit Eurocentric as it is.
- Took out the links except for the Indonesia link as the volcano is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- '
'occurred at Mount Samalas thanks to historical records — comma after Samalas
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Java Island is odd, just Java I think
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
before 12,000 BP.— “earlier than “ might be better to avoid the implicit repay of “before”
- I dunno, "earlier than" sounds a little odd in this context. As if it emphasized the "earlier" aspect too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
link topography
- Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The eruption column reached a height of 39–40 kilometres (24–25 mi) during the first stage (P1),[27] and of 43–38 kilometres (27–24 mi)— I assume there’s a reason why you have reversed the normal order in the second part, but if so it’s not clear to this reader
- Nah, that was unneeded. Ordered again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Franck Lavigne— who he? Nationality and profession would help since there’s no article linked
- Can't find an explanation on a brief search; I'll see later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Samalas and climate—I'd try to avoid having part of the article title in the heading
- Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
chlorine monoxide and bromine monoxide.— Your source doesn’t mention the oxides, which I would have thought to have only a transient presence anyway
- It does mention them in the form of their formulas - ClO and BrO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- My bad, you are correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- "violets" should surely link to Viola (plant)? The others don't make sense
- Maybe, but the source does not specify. You sure it can be only this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's actually most likely to be Viola arvensis, so the genus is actually playing safe to my mind. In my nature reserve and bird articles I'm often faced with a similar situation, but there is usually an obvious species or genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
atlantic meridional overturning circulation—cap Atlantic
- Capped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Mirror of the East—perhaps give Japanese name too?
- Removed the English one as it doesn't seem to be that important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: Addressed the other two pending problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looking again, the chlorine query was my misreading, and I think the Lavigne/Viola queries I can leave with you, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Stevey7788
- "CLIMATIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTION OF 1258" is in all caps. Change to lowercase and capitalize only as needed.
- "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died. — Javanese text, [64]" Which Javanese text? Please be more specific.
- A bit too many red links. Consider fixing those, although I am aware that Wikipedia has a notable dearth of content on Indonesian manuscripts and historical kingdoms.
- Overall, impressive and well cited. Good article but not quite yet a featured article yet due to various little things here and there. Some more tweaking and you might have a featured article.
— Stevey7788 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Stevey7788:Thanks for the comments. I did fix the caps issue and also the "Javanese text" bit. I cannot really fix many of the redlinks mostly owing to lack of information; sources on some of these topics are often sparse and/or in Bahasa Indonesia. I take that even so there are more things to tweak? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Stevey7788: Unfortunately, no. I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia and are nowhere close to Canberra or Leiden for my free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- No spotchecks carried out
- All links to sources working satisfactorily
- A few minor presentational points:
- Ref 64: pp range requires ndash not hyphen
- Retrieval dates should be formatted consistently – compare refs 2 and 63 with others
- Alloway et al is listed out of alphabetical sequence.
The sources appear to be of the appropriate high standards of quality and reliability, and except for the minor issues noted above are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Seems like I got all these done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per my extensive peer review comments. ceranthor 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Irakli Tsereteli
- Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Irakli Tsereteli was a Georgian politician active in revolutionary Russia, and arguably the most important figure in the Petrograd Soviet until the Bolsheviks took over. Now largely forgotten, he played a major role in leading the Soviet and giving it power within the Russian government. The article was nominated once before several months ago, but failed due to lack of reviews. I'm hoping this time we can resolve that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support
After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks, he returned to Georgia. Tsereteli worked as a diplomat at the Paris Peace Conference, where he lobbied for international recognition and assistance for the newly independent Democratic Republic of Georgia, which largely failed to materialize before the Red Army invaded in 1921. - could you split that, or reword it somehow? It's a lot for once sentence.
- Used a semi-colon, is that enough you think?
In 1915, during his Siberian exile, he formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism, and developed "Revolutionary Defensism", the concept of a defensive war, which Tsereteli argued was not being conducted at the time. - these are two different thoughts. You should split them into two. For the first, I suggest starting with, "During his 1915 Siberian exile, Tsereteli formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism". Here, I would explain what this term is to benefit the reader. For the second half, the "was not being conducted at the time" is a bit confusing. Could you try rewording that a bit?
- Tried to re-word this, but I'm a little uncertain and feel it can be made better. Let me know what you think.
- Much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"at his family's estate in Gorisa;[3] From a young age" - not to be pedantic (but that's what FAC is for), but if you're using a semicolon, then "from" shouldn't be capitalized.
- Thanks. Pedantry is definitely welcome and encouraged.
- Much appreciated lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"he was one of two students given a sentence of five years' exile in Siberia, the longest sentence given." - I'm confused by "longest sentence given." Longest among two people? Among students in general? Longest possible sentence?
- Clarified
and considering "its acceptance as being in conflict with [his] views" - was this quote by Tsereteli? Or his biographer?
- Clarified Tsereteli himself wrote it. It's unclear who he wrote it too, otherwise I'd add that.
"After declining the offer to return to Georgia, Tsereteli was sent to the village of Tulun, roughly 400 kilometres from Irkutsk, arriving in early 1902." - make sure you have imperial units for American folks. The sentence could be stronger, something like - "Tsereteli arrived in the village of Tulun in early 1902, located about 400 kilometres (250 miles) from Irkutsk, Siberia's administrative center."
- Done
"On his release from prison Tsereteli returned to Georgia" - so the Siberian bit, he was in jail? I was confused because he was permitted to move to Irkutsk, and prisoners don't usually have a say.
- Exile in Tsarist Russia was a little unusual like that: prisoners in Siberia were not jailed per se, and as a result escapes were quite common (Stalin, for example, was exiled and escaped multiple times in his younger years). I've changed the word "jail" to "exile" so hopefully it makes it slightly clearer.
- Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case. It's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"Suffering from a form of haemophilia, Tsereteli became seriously ill in the autumn of 1905, but was unable to quickly return home as the 1905 Revolution broke out in the Russian Empire.[20] It was only in May 1906 that he returned to Georgia." - so did he not go home because of his illness or because of the revolution? Given the next paragraph, I'm guessing the illness?
- Tried to clarify that: he was supposed to go home for rest, but the revolution got in the way.
After you quote the first speech, you should end it with a period and continue. Also, the "or indeed anything" felt a bit unencyclopediac.
- Fixed
Why is the second section called "Second Duma"? The article linked in January 1907 Russian legislative election says it was the Third Duma.
- That is a mistake on the article, which I've fixed. Thanks for noticing that.
"Stolypin grew increasingly tired of the opposition from the Social Democrats, and feared that his reforms would not be passed" - I had to read this a few times before I realized you weren't talking about the subject of this article. Perhaps put this in the previous section? It feels out of place almost.
- Moved this sentence and the next one to the previous section, as they kind of flow well together.
- "A conspiracy was created implicating the Social Democrats with trying to overthrow the government" - given that there is a link to the coup, could you maybe reword this to be more specific? Such as, "In June 1907..." I don't know what happened after because I'm only reading the article for the first time, and I was confused by the wording. Be more specific with what happened.
- This I will have to get back on. I can't recall the specifics of it, and will have to read up on it to best summarize it for here. Give me a couple days to do so.
- Thanks, that's the only part that's still giving me a bit of trouble. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to re-word it, but as the alleged conspiracy was less important than the actual arrest, I don't want to place too much emphasis on it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's the only part that's still giving me a bit of trouble. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"The Duma was dissolved on 2 June 1907 and shortly after midnight on 3 June several of the Social Democrats were arrested, including Tsereteli." - using active voice instead of passive voice would make this whole section clearer.
- I think I fixed this, but I'm not sure.
- "Tsereteli also engaged in discussion with other Social Democrats in the Irkutsk region on his views towards the war, and like them would have them published in a journal – Siberian Journal (Сибирский Журнал, in Russian), later replaced by the Siberian Review (Сибирское Обозрение) – that he edited" - the "like them" part threw me, as well as "that he edited", thrown at the very end. Could you try rewording it?
- Re-worded, hope that makes it clearer.
- It's better. I think it could still be split up more into separate sentences, but I'm not gonna harp on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"Through his editorship of the journals, Tsereteli both became a mentor to other Siberian Zimmerwaldists and influenced the group's stance on the war, even though he only wrote three articles over the course of the war, making it difficult to fully determine his position." - the ending kinda threw me off. Is there any way you could word it to be a bit more definitive?
- Re-wrote, any better?
- Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
" Tsereteli was appointed to the Soviet on 21 in an advisory role" - when?
- Sorry, seem to be missing a "March" there. Fixed.
- I miss words or do double words all the time, no worries :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anything about Tsereteli's time as a lawyer?
- Unfortunately not. The main source of his life is sub-titled "A Political Biography," and really holds up to that, and no one else really wrote about him.
- Limitations of the time, completely understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's not much from 1932 to 1948. What did he do then?
- As noted, there isn't anything out there I'm aware of on this era in his life. Even his own memoirs focus on 1917, which is a shame.
The article is in pretty good shape. I'm sorry the article failed before due to lack of comments. I hope you don't find my comments too burdensome. I happened upon this FAC while I was working on an FAC of my own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for looking over it in such detail, definitely not budensome. Glad to have someone not familiar with the topic look it over, always helps to clarify things I would take for granted. And certainly will take a look at your FAC when I have some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- As someone who writes about historical, often forgotten subjects, I'm glad to be detailed in my review. I thank you for your quick replies. I'll support when you clear up the bit about the coup, as it's a well-written article, and I learned a lot about the Russian Revolution through this one figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your hard work on the article. Supporting now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- As someone who writes about historical, often forgotten subjects, I'm glad to be detailed in my review. I thank you for your quick replies. I'll support when you clear up the bit about the coup, as it's a well-written article, and I learned a lot about the Russian Revolution through this one figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Spotchecks not carried out (I have no access to these sources)
- The article appears to be widely researched, and the sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability
- A couple of minor presentational points:
- Ref 110: page range format is not consisitent
- In the bibliography, Trotsky is out of alphabetical sequence
Otherwise, sourcing information is impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking it over. I do believer most of the sources here are (or were at one point) available through Google Books, though I also kept to largely prominent scholars (most of them have their own articles here, for what it's worth). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
It is not clear whether the article is meant to be in BrEng or AmerEng. At present we have the English spellings centre, defence, favourable, haemophilia, kilometres, organisations, publicised and travelled and the American center, criticized, defense, and (weirdly) maneuvered. We also have disinterest, which doesn't mean what I think you think it means, and attitute, which doesn't mean anything. I hope to look in again with more substantive comments shortly, but I hope these few orthographical points are of some use. Tim riley talk 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're seeing the result of a Canadian trying to use British variations, and apparently not doing so good. I will admit I don't quite get what you mean in referring to "maneuvered" (is there a British version of it I'm unaware of), or your reference to "disinterest" (a lack of involvement, which fits with Tsereteli's reaction to religion). If there's any other egregious issues please let me know, and I'll certainly give it another pass myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- BrE users follow the French spelling "manoeuvre" (though rarely using that strange French diphthong, as in "manœuvre"). The OED confirms that "maneuver" is "North American", so if that's your preferred form of spelling for the whole article, that's fine, but you'll want to be consistent throughout. "Disinterested" doesn't mean "not involved with" but means being impartial. One wants one's efforts to be judged by disinterested judges but not by uninterested ones. Tim riley talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanations, I was unaware of those and am glad for the advice. I've changed the wording in both cases to avoid any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- BrE users follow the French spelling "manoeuvre" (though rarely using that strange French diphthong, as in "manœuvre"). The OED confirms that "maneuver" is "North American", so if that's your preferred form of spelling for the whole article, that's fine, but you'll want to be consistent throughout. "Disinterested" doesn't mean "not involved with" but means being impartial. One wants one's efforts to be judged by disinterested judges but not by uninterested ones. Tim riley talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're seeing the result of a Canadian trying to use British variations, and apparently not doing so good. I will admit I don't quite get what you mean in referring to "maneuvered" (is there a British version of it I'm unaware of), or your reference to "disinterest" (a lack of involvement, which fits with Tsereteli's reaction to religion). If there's any other egregious issues please let me know, and I'll certainly give it another pass myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Irakly_Tsereteli.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:TsetereliFotografíasCárcelDeMetejiTiflis1904_(retouched).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Without looking further yet, I believe they may have first came out in his memoirs, which was published in 1963 in France. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- If that was the first publication, that will present a problem with regards to the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'll take a look at the book and see what can be done. As they are both nominally government-produced, I should be able to find earlier publication dates for them. Just need a couple days to get to the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria:: I was incorrect, and both are from the Roobol book. They are cited within as published in 1917 (lead) and 1904 (mugshot). Thoughts on how to proceed? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'll take a look at the book and see what can be done. As they are both nominally government-produced, I should be able to find earlier publication dates for them. Just need a couple days to get to the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- If that was the first publication, that will present a problem with regards to the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- What specifically is said about their provenance in that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The first one says: "Tsereteli as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. From a picture photograph." The next: "Tsereteli in the Metekhi prison in Tiflis in 1904." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- What specifically is said about their provenance in that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that doesn't mean they were published on those dates though. Is the Roobol book the earliest publication we can find for both? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- (outdent) At the moment, yes. The originals would be at the Hoover Institution archives at Stanford University; however that is currently closed to access for at least another year. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately without more information we'd have to assume these are still under copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Understandable. I'll remove them for now, and keep working on confirming their status. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately without more information we'd have to assume these are still under copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Midnightblueowl
- This sentence is currently in the lede paragraph: "He was born and brought up in Georgia when it was part of the Russian Empire,". At the very least it needs to have the comma changed to a full stop, but I would recommend moving this to the start of the second paragraph anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed
- "leading position with the Petrograd Soviet" - perhaps "leading position in the Petrograd Soviet"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done
- "After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks," - I think that this wording maybe relies on a little too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Perhaps something more explicit, along the lines of "After the Bolsheviks seized power of the Russian government during the October Revolution"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done
- "before the Red Army invaded in 1921." Maybe "before the Russian Red Army invaded in 1921."? Just so the reader is aware who the Red Army were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I added the qualifier "Bolshvevik-led" in front, just because it wasn't really exclusively the "Russian" Red Army. Hope that works.
- I would recommend pursuing a more integrated chronological approach in the lead. We mention his death at the end of the second paragraph and then start talking about further thing which he did during his life in the third. That feels a little confused, to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reorganised it to be more chronological, hopefully it makes more sense now.
- "a leading Social-Democratic spokesman". I think the leader could be clearer about his specific party membership and ideological bent here, particularly as "Social-Democratic" can have various different meanings. I would recommend something like "Ideologically a socialist, he was a leading spokesman for the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during the era of the Russian Revolutions." That would be much clearer and less ambiguous for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Added the link to the parties, including the Georgian one, as he was quite prominent there, too.
- Thanks for going over it, if there's anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Midnightblueowl: Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
All Money Is Legal
Hello everyone. The above article is about American rapper Amil's debut studio album. For those unfamiliar with Amil, she rose to prominence in 1999 and 2000 as a protégé of Jay-Z and the "First Lady" of his record label Roc-A-Fella. A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal includes songs about wealth and Amil's personal life. The singles – "I Got That" with vocals from Beyoncé and "4 da Fam" with verses from Jay-Z, Memphis Bleek, and Beanie Sigel – were released in 2000 to promote the album. All Money Is Legal peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and received a mixed response from critics. Following the album's release, Amil took a hiatus from music and was subsequently removed from Roc-A-Fella.
I believe that the article fulfills the criteria for a featured article, but I would be more than happy to receive suggestions/recommendations for further improvement. This article and FAC is part of my work on more obscure subject matters, and I hope that it inspires others to look into more obscure articles. In the beginning of last year, I received very helpful suggestions during its first FAC. I am pinging the reviewers from the first FAC (@Nikkimaria:, @Yashthepunisher:, @Numerounovedant:, @Ssven2:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Ceranthor:, @J Milburn:), but please do not feel obligated to respond. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
There are some new files compared to my last review:
- File:Jay-Z-02-mika.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
- File:GetDownAmilAudioSample.ogg: I take that this sample is representative of the album?
- File:Beyonce.jpg: Use seems OK, lack of EXIF data is a little worrisome but it was kept on Commons, so.
- I could replace the image with a different Beyoncé image if necessary. File:Beyonce - The Formation World Tour, at Wembley Stadium in London, England.jpg was used in the previous FAC. I could replace the one currently used in the article with the previous one if you would prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
OK-ish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have commented on the use of the audio sample and the Beyoncé image. I would greatly appreciate any input, particularly on the audio caption part, as I greatly appreciate your recommendations. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments/support from Ceranthor
Will post any suggestions by tomorrow. ceranthor 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- "A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal focuses on wealth and Amil's personal life. Some commentators wrote that she adopts a gold digger persona for the music." - The second sentence seems out of place in the transition to the third sentence
- "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for all of the album's tracks." - What does "developed" mean here? Seems a bit different from writing
- "Roc-A-Fella dropped Amil when she took a musical hiatus following the album's release." - nitpick, but I'd add the year to give a sense of how fast it was
- ",[4] and received the nicknames, the Diana Ross and the First Lady of Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - don't need the comma before [4] and I think it's actually a bit disruptive to the flow of the sentence as is
- "However, he stopped after the two women frequently fought on tour.[8]" - stopped what? unclear
- "Prior to the release of debut album," - missing "her"?
- "The second song "I Got That" features Beyoncé as part of its chorus, and encourages women to become more independent.[21] ' - I'd take out the comma before "and encourages"
- "and raps about the shame of shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[22]" - extra words here?
- "Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella following the album's release.[4] " - Again an explicit year would be nice
Nice work here. ceranthor 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Sometimes I go a little too comma crazy lol. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I either missed anything or you notice something new that needs to be addressed. Have a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments/support from CluelessEditoroverhere
Taking a look. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
-
- @Aoba47: I made some edits, I also recommend omitting commercially in that last para, but I know someone recommended it in the GA review that I looked at. Whatever's consensus. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't exactly what the italicized part of this sentence means. "...Amil began performing in New York City talent shows and rap over hip hop music by groups..." Need clarification. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @CluelessEditoroverhere: Here is the full sentence from the source (Her earliest influences were classic rap groups, such as Run-D.M.C., who she would mimic and practice rapping over when she was young.). It means that Amil practiced rapping over/while listening to rap music. It is similar to how singers practice singing by listening to music by other artists and singing over it. Let me know if that clears that up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Oh. I think
"rapping over music by rap groups" is more appropriate.Change made. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Support for 1a, 2a, and 2b. The article looks good. Nice work! CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
-
- I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Feel free to look at the source review from the previous FAC, although new sources have been added to the article since that FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, user below is doing so. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Damian Vo
Support from Figureskatingfan
- Support — Although I know next to nothing about rap and absolutely nothing about Amil, this is a support, since the prose reads well and it looks like it checks off all the FA requirements. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Argento Surfer
- I've made some copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revise as needed.
- "Amil began performing ... at age 12." - This feels vague because the rest of the article uses years to establish a timeline, not her age. I recommend added her birthdate or adding the year she was twelve to ground this sentence.
- Adding the years (as it can only be a rough approximation). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure this is right - Amil (rapper) says she was born Sept 1973, which would make her 12 in 1985-86, not 90-91 Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "In 2007, she formed the girl group Major Coins with Liz Leite and Monique" - Is this year right? The next sentences jump back to the 1990s, and the next paragraph sets the groups break up prior to 1998.
More to come... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's raps for previous collaborations, she wrote all of her own lyrics for the album." - I think the first half of this sentence belongs in a prior paragraph when you're talking about their collaborations. I'd move it myself, but I'm not sure which of the two citations it should go with.
- "Jay-Z has never publicly addressed..." - He's still alive, so I think this sentence needs an "As of" or similar qualifier.
These are the only issues I found. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Thank you again for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: - any comment on the years she was 12? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Apologies for missing that comment. I have revised it and adjusted the year and reference used. I saw an incorrect date on another source (a BBC source that was mostly likely a user edit/addition). That was my mistake as I should have used a more reliable source. I have used the Vibe article which helps source her birth year (1973) as it just mentions her age and not her exact birthday (however the full date is not necessary for this particular article). I will hunt around for a source for her full birthday to add to the main artist's article. Apologies again for the mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually have a quick question about that part. I have found some conflict reports about her birth year when doing further research. The Boombox says 1978 while Joel Whitburn says 1976. Would it just be best to remove the first two sentences of the "Background and recording" section altogether and lead with the Major Coins sentence since when she started rapping may be more relevant to the artist's main page? Apologies for the confusion. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think striking those two sentences would be best - like you say, they're not vital for this particular album. I've removed them, and I now support this nomination based on the prose. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually have a quick question about that part. I have found some conflict reports about her birth year when doing further research. The Boombox says 1978 while Joel Whitburn says 1976. Would it just be best to remove the first two sentences of the "Background and recording" section altogether and lead with the Major Coins sentence since when she started rapping may be more relevant to the artist's main page? Apologies for the confusion. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Apologies for missing that comment. I have revised it and adjusted the year and reference used. I saw an incorrect date on another source (a BBC source that was mostly likely a user edit/addition). That was my mistake as I should have used a more reliable source. I have used the Vibe article which helps source her birth year (1973) as it just mentions her age and not her exact birthday (however the full date is not necessary for this particular article). I will hunt around for a source for her full birthday to add to the main artist's article. Apologies again for the mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: - any comment on the years she was 12? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Source review
I'm about to start a formal source review, to get that hurdle cleared. I'll also probably make some general copyedits, and if I have non-source-related comments I'll bring those up here as well. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BLZ
I've made copyedits as I go, I'm part of the way through but should finish later tonight (it's currently noon in my timezone). General comments so far:
"According to a 2015 Fact article, Amil's signing to the label became the subject of industry gossip."
— my own rewording of the sentence there before, but it still seems a bit vague. You mention the Foxy Brown rumor, but the Duncan article also mentions a rumor that she was "pregnant with a married man's baby" ("married man?" Who? Not Jay-Z, but someone). You later quote lyrics that share some similarities with this rumor. Do any other sources comment on this? The Fact source only vaguely alludes to the rumors, but it's clear that whatever rumors they're referring to were salacious. I can understand restraint on your part in not vividly rehashing rumors of a sexual nature from 20 years ago about a female musician, but Amil herself was frank about the details when rebutting them in the Duncan article. Besides, mentioning that there were rumors without unpacking them is almost worse, because it suggests some unspecified debauched conduct while leaving the details entirely to the reader's imagination.
- I agree. I believe that the rumors referenced by the source are primarily about her alleged romantic relationship with Jay-Z. I included in the sentence about how she denied this along with the reports of a pregnancy. I always err on the side of caution for rumors. There are some weird ones out there about Amil, including how she said that she had a romantic relationship with Beyoncé. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You list the three executive producers but at no point list the producers. You do mention Just Blaze, who it seems reasonable to single out in the lead if his contributions were more noteworthy, but it seems like you should name the others in the body somewhere, either the background/recording section or the music section.
"All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, including six music samples."
Something about this formulation seems a little odd to me. The fact of the album having six samples distributed among 13 tracks seems like an almost arbitrary correlation to draw—especially since this fact isn't gleaned from a secondary source that found the presence of the samples inherently noteworthy, but from the album credits. To me, this would be an ideal place to highlight the full roster of producers: something like "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, with production credits from..."
"Lyrics include Amil's boast that she is 'the only hot bitch you're gonna hear this year'
— this seemed a little divorced from context on its own, so I added the fact that this was interpreted as a slight to Lil' Kim and Foxy Brown. Still conspicuously missing: what song is this from? A Google search only turns up the Browne article and the Wikipedia article. According to Genius, the song "That's Right" uses the words "hot bitch" but not as quoted by Browne, and with a different meaning.
- I removed the sentence. If the lyric is not on the actual album, then it should not be included here. I should have checked beforehand but I trusted the source as it is mostly reliable. Maybe they used a different version of the album for the review but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
"They highlighted the lyric "You know I gotta keep tricks up the sleeve, leav' em bankrupt with blue balls till the dick bleed" as an example."
— Song?
"For his part, Jay-Z raps about becoming a father in the verse: 'I got four nephews and they're all writing ... and I'm having a child, which is more frightening.'"
— Whoa whoa whoa! I revised "becoming a father" to "expecting a child", since Jay-Z did not become a father at any time before 2012 as far as anyone knows. Given that Jay-Z and Beyoncé are one of the most famous (if not the most famous) couples in the world, it's a huge bomb to drop that Jay-Z was even expecting a child in 2000 without providing further context. Since the cited source provides these details, it may be worth clarifying that Jay-Z never made further comment about the expected child he mentioned on "4 da Fam", and that this line came well before Blue Ivy Carter.
- Thank you for the edit as it is a much better wording. If you are interested. here is another source about Jay-Z supposedly expecting a child back in 2000. There is a few articles out there about it, but they are mostly just rumors and speculation. Jay-Z has never explicitly said who the mother was or what happened so providing further context is a little difficult. I have included more details from the source, but I did not include the reporter's speculation on a miscarriage. I am not sure that kind of gossip should be included. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brandt Luke Zorn: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to let you know that I have (hopefully) addressed the above points. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)
This article is about Tropical Depression Nineteen-E, a tropical cyclone that caused significant flooding and several deaths throughout northwestern Mexico and several states in the Southern United States. I believe this article should be featured as it has complete coverage of the subject and is of a high enough quality. NoahTalk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:19E 2018-09-19 1830Z.jpg - can we link to the source any better than a link to the homepage? A description of how to find it, if a direct link is not possible?
- File:Nineteen-E 2018 track.png - I don't believe this can be dual-licensed like it is, since PD would always override CC 4.0 SA. You may want to get a second opinion, but if that is the case, you probably want to notify the uploader and have them select the appropriate license.
- File:19E 2018-09-21 1950Z.jpg - same comment as first
Ping me when the above is addressed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alright... I will address these on Saturday. NoahTalk 11:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kees08: All images should be correct. NoahTalk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Suppose this is for my own edification, but which satellites does the data come from, and are they all PD? My assumption is that it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kees08: All images should be correct. NoahTalk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Review by Hurricanehink
Support - great work on the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- In the US section, it seems like you're trying to pad the prose a bit. It's just a bit on the superfluous side.
- Tropical Depression Nineteen-E's remnant moisture also caused flooding in the U.S. states of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas after picking up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. - don't say "moisture" twice. People don't like that word.
- Where's New Mexico impact? If it affected Arizona and Texas, surely it also affected NM.
- "To the north" - is this north of Thatcher, or of Arizona?
- "A person who was walking near the Pantano Wash had to be rescued after being overcome by rising waters." - this could be tighter
- "Near Silverbell, it was reported that 3 feet (0.91 m) of water was running over the intersection of two roads." - why do you have to mention that it was reported? Why not just say that two roads were flooded?
- "Approximately 2 to 3 in (50.8 to 76.2 mm) of rain fell along Sahuarita Road" - this appears to be the highest rainfall in Arizona that you mentioned, so this should probably be mentioned sooner. Could you give a location other than some random road?
- "It was also reported that 1.56 in (39.6 mm) of rain fell in Tucson." - how come you mention this specific rainfall total?
- "saw rainfall totals of up to 18 in (457 mm)." - the "up to" is what I'm not a fan of. You mention in the infobox the specific highest rainfall total in Oklahoma, which is more useful to the reader than "up to 18 in", which is a fuzzy number that isn't real.
- Fixed most of the mistakes you pointed out, the New Mexico impact I will try to work on ASAP. Oof-off (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- were just under 16 in (406 mm). - I'm still not a fan of this. Could you just state what the highest rainfall total in Oklahoma was? Then I'll be glad to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: Fixed. NoahTalk 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- were just under 16 in (406 mm). - I'm still not a fan of this. Could you just state what the highest rainfall total in Oklahoma was? Then I'll be glad to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed most of the mistakes you pointed out, the New Mexico impact I will try to work on ASAP. Oof-off (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the article at FAC, and I think it could pass without too much effort. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: I added what little I could find for New Mexico. The only thing NWS has for damages is a fallen tree. Minimal rainfall also occurred. NoahTalk 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Ref 10: should give language (Spanish)
- Ref 11: the title is given in English translation rather than the Spanish original. Any reason?
- Ref 26: should give language (Spanish)
- Ref 45: returns "site not available" message
- Ref 47: ditto
- Ref 48: returns "access denied" message
Otherwise, sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 10 Changed to an entirely different format NoahTalk 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 11 has been fixed
- Ref 26 already had the language marked
- Refs 45, 47-48 I don't know why you are unable to access the websites. I was able to access all three websites. I did not have to pay for any of them. Is anyone else having the same problem? NoahTalk 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Refs 45, 47, and 48 work fine for me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like my lack of access was a local problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: All of these refs should be correct now.NoahTalk 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources look fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Yellow Evan
- "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E was a weak tropical cyclone that caused flooding throughout Northwestern Mexico and several U.S. states, and is the first known tropical cyclone to have formed over the Gulf of California." pick one or the other to use as an opener. Also why is US not spelled out? seems kinda strange? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- ". It then meandered to the southwest of Mexico for the next several days as it interacted with a trough, forming an area of disturbed weather formed on September 14." "forming" and "formed" is redundant but tbh "area of disturbed weather" AFAIK is just an informal terms I'd just axe that last bit altogether. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "A surface trough developed over the Baja California peninsula on September 18." given how you invoke the term trough above, calling a surface LPA a "surface trough" is a bit unorthodox, even if extremely correct. I'd leave it as is but add clarification that the above trough was mid to upper level. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you need to mention 2018 USD at all given the title and the recency of the event? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E formed as the result of an area of low pressure interacting with a tropical wave. Its origins can be traced back to a tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa in between August 29 and 30." in what chronological relevance does the first sentence have with the second? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why wait till the MH to abbreviate NHC? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Abbreviated in MH and labeled as National Hurricane Center (NHC) in the lead. NoahTalk 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Worth noting how unexpected 17E's formation was in the MH? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Around that time, the NHC noted that banding features" link to rainband. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Torrential rainfall affected the Baja California peninsula for a few days before genesis occurred on September 19 through the system's dissipation.[11] The National Meteorological Service of Mexico reported that Baja California Sur received heavy rainfall. The southern portion of the state received approximately 2.56 to 3.94 in (70 to 100 mm) of rain, with an isolated value of up to 4.88 in (124 mm) being reported.[9]" you can probably combine the first two sentences with the third or form its own sentence. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "more than 300 tons of mud, stones, and garbage were removed from roads in order to make them passable for vehicles.[14]" what kind of tons? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "14,000 hectares (34,595 acres) " why are units spelled out? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Were no red/blue/green alerts ever issued? See tropical cyclone warnings and watches. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "causing washes of up to 2 feet (0.61 m) that left several individuals stranded in their vehicles.[29]" what's with the inconsistent spelling out of units? you abbreviate inches but not feet or hectares? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
All in all, great job. Just a few minor mistakes here and there. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Cyclonebiskit
- United States aftermath needed – Disaster declarations in Texas means there should be federal recovery efforts in the state. Please look through local emergency management offices for additional details. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: I can't mention this disaster declaration in the article. That report mentions severe storms and flooding over a large timespan. Since neither Nineteen-E nor a "dying Pacific tropical system/depression" were mentioned as having been involved, it would be OR to link the two. NoahTalk 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Look through local emergency management offices. I found a summary of the relevant event for Texas (incident period 9/21-22). With $250 million in damage there should be aftermath information. If this is lumped into other events, include a brief summary of the overall relief. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry... Aftermaths are entirely new to me. Im working on Mexico aftermath right now. NoahTalk 22:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit and Yellow Evan: Is that better? NoahTalk 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: pardon the delayed response, been busy with work. Yes this is much better, well done! I'll go over the article to see if I have any additional comments shortly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit and Yellow Evan: Is that better? NoahTalk 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry... Aftermaths are entirely new to me. Im working on Mexico aftermath right now. NoahTalk 22:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Look through local emergency management offices. I found a summary of the relevant event for Texas (incident period 9/21-22). With $250 million in damage there should be aftermath information. If this is lumped into other events, include a brief summary of the overall relief. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: I can't mention this disaster declaration in the article. That report mentions severe storms and flooding over a large timespan. Since neither Nineteen-E nor a "dying Pacific tropical system/depression" were mentioned as having been involved, it would be OR to link the two. NoahTalk 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Further comments
- Use {{convert}} for rainfall totals and make sure to use proper sig figs using
|sigfig=
. i.e. If a value is reported as 300 mm, only have 1 sigfig for the inches conversion. Same goes for in to mm conversions. Add parameter|abbr=on
for abbreviating and (in this case) use|disp=flip
if the original measurement is in mm so that inches is shown first.- I've made these adjustments to the rainfall table, please follow suit with these changes for the prose in the remainder of the article.
- At least one of the values didn't match the source so I've corrected it. Please double check the values to ensure they're accurate.
- When using a range, the template can be adjusted to handle that:
{{convert|50|–|100|mm|in|abbr=on|disp=flip}}
for example. - For winds, WPTC doesn't use the convert template with values reported by RSMC's due to the original values being in knots and us showing that in mph and km/h. However, convert templates should be used for measured winds.
- I've made these adjustments to the rainfall table, please follow suit with these changes for the prose in the remainder of the article.
- I've gone ahead and reorganized and fixed up the rainfall table. When you add
class=unsortable
to the top column, it makes that entire column unsortable which defeats the purpose of making the table sortable. Having them organized by region is preferable over amount to reduce coding redundancy and the sortable takes care of having it highest to lowest.- When using numbers in a table, be sure to use {{nts}} for standalone values and add
|sortable=on
to the convert template.
- When using numbers in a table, be sure to use {{nts}} for standalone values and add
~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army
This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Source review - pass
I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:
The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.
@WP:FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Support by PM
I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
image review
- Suggest
|upright=1
for all portraits
- File:Baron_Steuben_by_Peale,_1780.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Randolph_B._Marcy_-_Brady-Handy.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria: both changes done. tks! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportComments from Tim riley
Shall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:
- Lead. At first sight it seems very short – at 107 words – for an article of more than 3,000 words, but having read through the article I can't see what else could usefully be added to the lead. The MoS says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and I think this lead, though short, does that.
- "relatively unchanged" crops up three times in the article. "Relatively" seems to me an unsatisfactory, vague word here: relative to what?
- "de facto" is not italicised in our article on the term, and I doubt if it should be here.
- I paused for a bit about the bills in 1902 and 1903: the first originally proposed to abolish the Inspector General's Department and the second proposed to abolish the post of inspector general (and his department?) but no reason is mentioned. It would be relevant and interesting to say why the idea was mooted.
Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
British National (Overseas)
This article is about British National (Overseas) status, a nationality that was only obtainable by British subjects in the former colony of Hong Kong before its return to China in 1997. It's a rather peculiar status that doesn't actually give its holders a legal right to live in the UK. I've recently put in a good amount of work into the entire article and was able to get it past its GA review, and I believe it's up to par with the FA criteria as well. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Suggest adding alt text
- Not seeing a strong rationale for including the non-free image - other images such as the BN(O) passport could illustrate the concept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just omitted the image. Since there's another article specifically about the BN(O) passport, figured it'd be fine. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also wanted to add that the only distinguishing feature between a British citizen passport vs a BN(O) passport is the heading that "European Union", which is definitely going to be problematic in about two weeks. I could use the inside page of a BN(O) passport, but I believe any (not sure?) passport image falls under Crown copyright and would thus be non-free. Horserice (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias
- The note about when BN(O) was created it kind of hidden (I didn't notice it mentioned until a second read over). I'd argue that it should be made more prominent, and also seems like something to add to the lead; for the latter, perhaps start the second paragraph like: "This nationality was created in 1985(?) to allow Hong Kong residents..."
- Sure, I added the year in the lead.
- In the Background section, is there anything that can be added relating to the earlier class of citizenship (if any) that residents of Hong Kong had?
- Moved up that part from the Controversy section.
- "While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status,[10] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible." Is there any way to expand on why so many were ineligible? I would assume it has to do with Chinese nationality law, but that isn't clear.
- The only requirement was actually just being a BDTC. Not sure how else to elaborate on that?
- "Hong Kong residents and legislators, with some supporters in Parliament, believed that granting full British citizenship would have been more appropriate for instilling confidence in Hong Kong's post-handover future and that residents should be offered a choice to continue living under British rule." From the context of the sentence, shouldn't the bolded be "should have been," as it talks about a past event?
- Made that change.
A real neat article, and covers an interesting topic. I'll look it over once more, but I think that may be all I can see right now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for reading through it, made some changes. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Addressed what I saw with it, feel it does the job. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Deactivators
- Nominator(s): GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Deactivators, a game that was once opined by a reviewer as being destined to be a cult classic. A short but simple article by its own right, the game itself has the player control bomb disposal robots to remove bombs from scientific research complexes before they explode. While receiving positive reviews at the time, it was not commercially successful and its developer closed shortly after. And with that I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Both FURs should be expanded, and the second is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I expanded both image FURs and completed the second ones. GamerPro64 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment For the sake of comprehensive coverage, what do you think about including more background on the context in which the game was created? Some questions I'm left with after reading the article:
- Was this the first/only game developed by Tigress Marketing? If not, what sorts of games had they previously made? What level of success did they achieve?
- No they made other games like They Stole a Million, which might have been released later. Also read they made a game based on A View to Kill. Its hard to calculate the success they had but the company did close after the release of this game. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was this the first game developed by Bishop/Palmer?
- No. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- What was the climate around gaming on the platforms for which this game was released (the Armstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum). Did these systems already have large game catalogues? Was interest in PC gaming on the rise at the time of the development of Deactivators? On the decline?
- This was during 80s British gaming and the NES was a month old when it came to Europe. I would say the climate was fine at this time, don't think it was affected by the video game crash of 83. Not seeing how this would add to the article. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Were puzzle games a popular genre in PC gaming at the time? Are there any examples of very popular PC puzzle games that preceded Deactivators?
- That does seem to be very off-topic. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, it's pretty common for articles on video games to mention other similar games that came before. e.g. BioShock § Gameplay compares aspect of the game to System Shock 2 and Pipe Mania. Final Fantasy (video game) § Development talks about how RPGs had been considered an unprofitable genre until the success of Dragon Quest, which is what led to Final Fantasy being greenlit. Colin M (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was a reviewer that compared it to Spy vs. Spy (1984 video game). But there was also praise given to the game for its originality. GamerPro64 16:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, it's pretty common for articles on video games to mention other similar games that came before. e.g. BioShock § Gameplay compares aspect of the game to System Shock 2 and Pipe Mania. Final Fantasy (video game) § Development talks about how RPGs had been considered an unprofitable genre until the success of Dragon Quest, which is what led to Final Fantasy being greenlit. Colin M (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That does seem to be very off-topic. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is this game notable for any features of gameplay or design that were unusual at the time? I'm interested in the note in the "Reception" section about the game's monochromatic appearance. Maybe that could be touched on earlier in the article?
- I think the comment of the monochromatic appearance might be in reference to the Commodore 64 version. GamerPro64 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was this the first/only game developed by Tigress Marketing? If not, what sorts of games had they previously made? What level of success did they achieve?
- I realize some of these could be verging on WP:OFFTOPIC, but just wanted to put a few ideas out there. Colin M (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support from Aoba47
- I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image and the image in the article, but I will leave that choice up to you.
- Would it be better to link "action puzzle" rather than just "puzzle" as there is an existing link for it?
- Did so. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am a little confused by this part (The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, who must deactivate bombs placed), because the placement of the dependent clause makes it sound like the "Deactivators" are the ones "who must deactivate bombs placed" when I am assuming you mean the player instead.
- I think I fixed it. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For this part (deactivate bombs placed throughout five scientific research complexes by terrorists), I think the "by terrorists" part should go directly after "placed".
- Done. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For this part (can be used in the game: Selecting Deactivators), I believe that "selecting" should be in lower-case rather than capitalized.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For this part (and was published by Ariolasoft under its Reaktor label), I would use "imprint" rather than "label" to avoid a potential Easter Egg situation since the word "label' can refer to multiple things.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have a question about this part (The graphics received mixed reactions for each console.). A majority of the comments in the paragraph are positive, and I only notice one negative review (i.e. from Andrew Wilton). I am not sure if that is enough to quality as "mixed" as it still seems mostly positive.
- Changed up. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since the response to the graphics has a full paragraph in the reception section, I would add something about it to the lead.
- Done. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I get the following error message (The requested URL /files/computer/magazines/retro gamer/Retro_Gamer_Issue_119.pdf was not found on this server.) when I try to access Reference 8. It could be a problem on my end though, but I just wanted to point that out to you. I have not check the other references as I will leave that to whoever does the source review.
- Found a scan to the magazine through Archive.org. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This was a very interesting read. I am somewhat surprised that this has not attracted more comments from other users. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I have addressed your comments. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hurricane Connie
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Hurricane Connie, which was part of the busy 1955 Atlantic hurricane season (already a good topic). Connie caused flooding in the United States that was exasperated by Hurricane Diane (a featured article) just four days later. Connie was a fairly routine landfalling hurricane, although it caused a notable shipwreck, and its impacts extended into Michigan and Ontario, unusual for a storm hitting North Carolina. I first got the article to GA status in 2013. I've been working on it over the past few days, and I'm proud of the work in the article. I believe it is the most comprehensive source of information for Connie available anywhere, and I believe the prose and variety of sources warrants its consideration for becoming a featured article.
BTW, hopefully another user will get another hurricane from this season featured, so we'll be one article away from a featured topic. Also, this is a WikiCup nomination. Happy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Retrieval dates need to be in consistent format
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 3: The name of the paper is "Free Lance-Star" not "Free-Lance Star"
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 4: Check name of newspaper, which appears to be different from that given
- Ref 4 isn't to a newspaper, it's to a United States Weather Service report. That's why I use Cite book. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 7: The source is given as a newspaper, The Robesonian, but the actual source is a website, "GenDisasters.com". Compare with Ref 9.
- You're right it's a website. I would argue "GenDisasters.com" should be in the at= value of the reference. The site is merely reporting the contents of a news article by The Robesonian.
- Ref 12: link goes to a different article, entitled "Evacuees from Hurricane Connie Spilled Into Sea"
- Fixed link. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 13: I can't locate the stated source article in the newspaper link
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 14: The New York Times needs italicisation. You should also add a subscription template
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 15: Where do the publisher and date details come from? They are not evident from the source.
- The home page for ref 15 is the Weather Prediction Center. Here is the main page for the Tropical cyclone rainfall page. You can see David Roth's name on there. If you go to the file name, you can find the creation date for the image. It was updated from when I originally wrote the article, so I updated the date of when the page was made last updated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 18: Does not link to the stated source article. It links to the same article as ref 12 - see above
- The beginning of ref 18 has the title and everything, but the information that is in the article is where the newspaper is linked to for ref 18. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 21: The headline of the source article is given incorrectly
- Eek, fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 23: Returns "website unavailable" - presumably this is due to some regional factor
- I'm not sure. It works fine for me, but it does have a popup suggesting that I support journalism. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Otherwise the sources appear to be in good order and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review User:Brianboulton. Please let me know if I have sufficiently addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- All concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Connie1955HATradar.png: source link is dead
- For the US rainfall map, suggest specifying in the caption northeast US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I changed the image caption as suggested, and I updated the link to the image in the infobox. Thanks for reviewing User:Nikkimaria! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Review from Hurricane Noah
I will be doing this review in chunks as I will not have enough time to do it all now. NoahTalk 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead
- There is a page for the Eastern United States. Probably should just link to it.
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- What is a well-developed hurricane? There is no context for this.
- Simplified wording and removed "well-developed". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Connie first posed a threat to the Lesser Antilles, and the storm ultimately passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." I would avoid mentioning Lesser Antilles twice in the same sentence. Also, you could change ",and the storm ultimately passed" to 'ultimately passing'
- Removed duplicate wording and changed as suggested. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "In the United States Virgin Islands, three people died due to the hurricane, and a few homes were destroyed." Is there a specific cause for these deaths? Winds, flooding, rip currents, etc?
- It's listed in the impact section. I didn't think it was worth mentioning in the lede. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link Puerto Rico
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "After affecting Puerto Rico, Connie turned to the northwest, reaching peak winds of 140 mph (220 km/h)." Probably should mention the pressure here as well. It wouldn't hurt to link maximum sustained winds.
- After affecting Puerto Rico, Connie reached maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h), and a barometric pressure of 944 mbar (27.9 inHg), as observed by the Hurricane Hunters on August 7. - better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." add an 'a' before Category
- OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link tropical cyclone
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "The storm moved through the Chesapeake Bay region and progressed inland, dissipating on August 15 over Lake Huron when it was absorbed by a cold front." Could be reworded to "The storm progressed inland after moving through the Chesapeake Bay region, and was later absorbed by a cold front over Lake Huron on August 15".
- Good wording. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link Washington, D.C.
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- De-link the second mention of Chesapeake Bay
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link Pennsylvania and New Jersey
- Link New York
- Done all three. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "The rains from Connie contributed to flooding from Hurricane Diane that caused $700 million in damage" Change to ', which'
- I don't think that's correct. You would use "which" if there was comma, but there isn't one here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link Ontario
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Meteorological history
- "The depression moved quickly west-northwestward and quickly intensified into Tropical Storm Connie." I don't like seeing quickly twice in the same sentence. I would recommend using a synonym for one.
- Removed one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report, suggested that Connie attained hurricane status on August 4." Would recommend changing the first bolded part to 'a report from a nearby ship'. Probably should be 'suggest'.
- Removed "report" and made it "a nearby ship" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "The hurricane continued to intensify as it approached the northern Lesser Antilles. On August 6, Connie passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." combine these.
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "(944 mbar (27.9 inHg) is there a reason for rounding here?
- I used the converting template. I wrote it out manually so it would be the same as the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- You mention Saffir-Simpson scale too many times. You only need to state the scale once and simply refer to the system as Cat X afterwards
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "southeast United States coast" I would change this to "southeastern coast of the United States"
- That's two extra words. Do I need to change it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Link Virginia
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "steered by strengthening upper-level trough and low" Add an 'a'
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comma after Pennsylvania
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments Support by Kaiser matias
I'm totally unfamiliar with anything hurricane-related, but I'll give it a look over:
- "...striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." Should that be "a Category 2," with a definite article? I see it used later in the article, so want to know what is the proper way to go, definite article or not.
- Thanks, someone above mentioned the same thing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Considering there is a list of fatalities per region, would it make sense to include a total in the lead somewhere?
- As a result of its impacts, including a death toll of 74, the name Connie was retired from the Atlantic hurricane naming list. - I added this to the lede. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina." Was this the only evacuations? If not, I'd add just a brief blurb about others: "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina, while smaller numbers left..."
- Probably not, and truth be told, that number was just from one newspaper, and we don't always know how many people leave, go visit relatives, whatnot. Therefore, I changed the 2nd lede paragraph's opening sentence to this: Ahead of the storm, the United States Weather Bureau issued widespread hurricane warnings, spurring evacuations, flight cancelations, and beach closures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "A tropical wave developed into a tropical depression to the west of the Cape Verde islands on August 3..." I feel that the year should be added here, as its the first mention of a date in the body of the article.
- OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report..." Should be "ship reports"?
- I changed this to "a nearby ship." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "...making Connie a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale." As the scale was named in the preceding paragraph, I don't think it needs to be said again here.
- Hah, that's the third comment that Hurricane Noah said above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "While Connie was meandering in the western Atlantic Ocean, its potential track posed problems for forecasters." Is there any particular reason it posed a problem? It sounds like they didn't know where it would go, but is there any reason why they couldn't make a guess?
- That's partly true. The difficulty was in the slow movement right near the coast. Forecasts have advanced incredibly since 1955, but at the time, there were no supercomputers to tell the public where the storm would go.
- Baltimore Sun should be in italics.
- Thanks for catching that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired, and will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane." This is repetitive wording, and can be simplified: "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired as a name for Atlantic hurricanes."
- I wanted to emphasize what it meant to be retired, which is why it was wordy. I changed it to: Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired from the Atlantic hurricane naming list. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a lot that I see to clean up, and I generally understood it, which is a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing User:Kaiser matias! I hope I addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by 12george1
The only issue I have is that some states are lacking in details. I know you don't have access to Newspapers.com, so I'll help you out a bit here.
- Preps: [2], [3], [4]
- South Carolina: [5]
- Virginia: [6], (Part 1), (Part 2)
- Delaware: [7], [8]
- New Jersey: [9], [10],[11], [12]
- Pennsylvania: [13], [14], (Part 1), (Part 2)
- New York: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] - This is saying 14 deaths in New York
- Aftermath: SBA loans
- And here is a brief summary of impact in several states. Might be something useful in there.
All in all, this is a pretty good article, but I'll need to see a lot of this added before I can switch to support.--12george1 (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hermano Pule
- Nominator(s): Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
A Filipino religious leader in the 19th century who established a religious order as a protest against the racially discriminatory practices of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Philippines. Fearing an armed rebellion, the Spanish colonial government violently suppressed the order and had Hermano Pule executed.Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack
Very good, interesting article. Only two little quibbles:
- The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
- Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jens Lallensack. Thanks for reviewing the article.
- The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
- I can only write based on the sources that I've cited. However, please consider the following facts from the article: (1) Pule's letters were important to cofradía members that they had to be read aloud to the memebers. (2) He was the one who communicated with the Church and the State officials when he sought their recognition and authorization for the cofradía. (3) The cofradía had at least two large portraits of Pule stylized as a saint, which indicates that he was revered by them as a "saint". (4) The cofradía members wanted to crown him "King of the Tagalogs". The cofradía had other senior leaders, but it was he who they wanted to be king. (5) The Colonial Government offered amnesty to the members of the cofradía, with the exception of Hermano Pule and a few others. This suggests that the government knew he was a major figure in the movement. (6) The members of the revived cofradía claimed to have witnessed the alleged joint apparition of the Virgin of the Rosary, Hermano Pule, and Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge. This signifies that Pule was an important figure in the cofradía; please also note that Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge only led the cofradía when Pule was absent.
Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here.
- Done.
- --Jollibinay (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jens Lallensack. Thanks for reviewing the article.
Sources review
- Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
- Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
- Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
- Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
- Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
- Ref 40: Returns error message
- Ref 44: Publisher information missing
Overall, the sources appear to be well chosen, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. A limited spotchecking exercise produced no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for reviewing the references of the article.
Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
- Done.
- Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
- Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
- Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
- Tried to complete the publisher information, but can't find DOI.
Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
- Done.
Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
- It was a typographical error. The correct is "Palad 2001a", which is found in the biblography.
- Ref 40: Returns error message.
- Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
- Ref 44: Publisher information missing.
- Added all the publisher information that I can find. The original URL is dead.
- Jollibinay (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for reviewing the references of the article.
Catalogue of Women
This article is about a fragmentary Greek epic poem that was politically and socially important during its time of circulation, and which had a lasting influence upon later Greek, Roman and Byzantine literature. davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment Only a passing one at the moment, though I'll look in more thoroughly shortly if I can. A swift skim through for spelling brings up a few queries:
- "descendent/s" is used throughout where I would expect the noun "descendant/s".
- "enamoured" (passim) looks like English spelling in an article that is otherwise in American spelling, but perhaps this is acceptable to Webster etc.
- "catalogue" looks rather the same, but is perhaps optional in American spelling.
- "centered around" Some reviewers (not including me) get very hot under the collar about this construction, insisting that things centre on rather than round. I just mention it, but ignore ad lib.
- "impius" should surely be "impious"?
More later, I hope, time permitting. Tim riley talk 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Tim: descendants, enamoured and impius (thanks ImmortalWizard are corrected. Catalogue is less common in American English, but since Oxford scholars dominated scholarship on this work, I've kept their spelling for the title and for the word. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Catalogue" for the title is certainly correct. And using either "catalog" or catalogue" for the common noun would be ok I think. Paul August ☎ 13:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Now supporting. I suppose I should with duly straight face object to the WP:EDIT adverb in "Zeus unsurprisingly had first pick from the catalogue of women", but it's far too pleasing a sentence to be tampered with. The family tree is impressive; the prose is very readable; the content is clearly expounded without excessive detail; the article is thoroughly and widely referenced; there are judiciously chosen images throughout. I'm a hopelessly bad classicist, but the article, me judice, meets the FA criteria in all regards. – Tim riley talk 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Hi Davidiad, there are 13 citation error messages in "Editions and translations", all "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation." I've noticed this before with {{Citation}}. If you read through the template documentation, there must be a way to fix it, or you could use {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}}. There are seven error messages in the "References" section, and a lot in Bibliography. If you add
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)- Thank you SlimVirgin. I can correct the missing ref links from the references to the bibliography, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" in Editions and translations and in the Bibliography. Should I have used a different template for these sections? Editions and translations is a reference section of major editions of the work, so there would only be a reference to a work if needed in the body. Bibliography is kind of the same: it's a bibliography, not a list of references. I'll research the different markups for these. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Davidiad, I've noticed this problem before with {{Citation}}; it acts as if one had entered
ref=harv
. The template documentation almost certainly explains how to fix it. Or you can use {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}, which don't have that problem. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC) - I made one edit to show you what I mean. Feel free to revert if it's not what you want. The citations are missing the publisher. I added one but you'll need to add the rest. SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Davidiad, I've noticed this problem before with {{Citation}}; it acts as if one had entered
- Thank you SlimVirgin. I can correct the missing ref links from the references to the bibliography, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" in Editions and translations and in the Bibliography. Should I have used a different template for these sections? Editions and translations is a reference section of major editions of the work, so there would only be a reference to a work if needed in the body. Bibliography is kind of the same: it's a bibliography, not a list of references. I'll research the different markups for these. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- P.Oxy._XI_1359_fr._2.jpg: no need for the double tagging, the latter would suffice. Same with File:P.Lit.Lond._32.jpg, File:P.Oxy._XI_1358_fr._2.jpg, File:P.Berol._inv._9739_col._iv-v.jpg
- File:Roubaix_Louis_Billotey.JPG: copyright tag is incorrect, reproduction of a 2D work garners no new copyright and copyright details for the original work are absent
- File:Bauer_-_Erysichthon_Mnestra.jpg needs a US PD tag
- File:Seneca.JPG needs a tag for the original work
- File:Daniel_Heinsius_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nikkimaria, I'm a novice at image tagging. I'll research and address. davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack
Certainly a great work, and very interesting, I learned quite a bit from it. It is highly complex though, as all those names need to be mentioned, but I think there is not much one can do about it. Still, I think the article needs just some more polishing, see comments below:
- Some statements appear to miss a source:
- This view was disproved conclusively in 1911 with the publication of an extensive papyrus fragment (pictured) of the episode which derived from the same bookroll that contained the myth of Europa described above.
- (frr. 10a.83–98, 10d OCT, 15) – I don't quite understand which source I need to look at here. It can't just be the original of the Catalogue, as this citation seems to cover interpretation also.
- not the eponym of the Magnetes – I do not understand, what is Magnetes?
- Aeolus' extended family, via both sons and daughters, is notable for a concentration of fantastical narratives and folk elements of a sort largely absent from the Homeric poems – Hm, you are comparing a family with an author? Does this mean that these narratives appear in the Catalogue? Is this refering to the section on Aeolus' family in the book?
- The sons who were certainly found in the Catalogue are Cretheus, Athamas, Sisyphus, Salmoneus, Deion (or Deioneus) and Perieres. A seventh son's name is obscured in lacuna – That means the other sons names are mentioned in the surviving fragments? Uf so, why say "certainty"?
- Suggest to briefly names of central importance in a few words, such as Aeolus. Would make the article more accessible.
- the name used in the poem for the woman later and more famously known as Iphigenia. – took me time to understand, its a bit convoluted. Maybe simplyfy by removing "later and"?
- for Mestra does not bear children to Glaucus. – I know it is mentioned at the beginning of the article, but I think it would not hurt to repeat who Glaucus is and why he is important here.
- Atalanta was transformed into lion – "a" lion?
- Zeus changed all of Aegina's ants – I would explain why she has ants in the first place.
- described by West – introduce him at first mention? Also, all quotes should be attributed to the respective authors; this is only partly the case.
- Pindar, Pythian 9 tells – what is this, could you add explanation and/or a link?
- another papyrus containing 21 hexameters related to the Actaeon myth was published by Edgar Lobel – maybe give a date here?
- well after period to which Hesiod has been assigned – "the" period?
- Martin West – was previously introduced, but not with first name. Should be with first name at first mention.
- where are the papyri from, how got they preserved? From Alexsndria? That's important considering possible alterations
- Pseudo-Apollodoran Bibliotheca, an early Roman-era handbook of Greek mythology – this work is introduced too late. Should be explained at first mention.
- of Heinsius (1603) and Graevius (1667). – not standard to link these as references, and even inconsistent within the article. I would suggest to unlink and simply add the regular citation behind (e.g., Heinsius (1603)[23] and Graevius (1667)[45]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The Infinity Gauntlet
- Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the 1991 comic book crossover that served as the inspiration for last summer's Avengers: Infinity War film and (presumably) this summer's Avengers: Endgame film. I expanded the article about a year ago, and the first FAC attempt didn't garner enough attention. It was promoted to GA in October 2018 and has been mostly stable since then. I'm hoping this can get through the process in time to be on the main page for the release of the new Avengers movie on April 28. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Support from TheJoebro64
I supported at the last FAC, and my support still stands. This is a great and informative read and a model for how comic book articles should look. I'm beginning to not feel so good, though... JOEBRO64 16:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator notes
Despite an early expression of support, not much has happened here in the last month. Unless there is some significant commentary in the next few days, the nomination will be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
- I would add ALT text for the images in the body of the article.
- I've added alt text for the Sleepwalker cover. I'm unsure about adding any to the two images of Thanos in the plot section. The purpose there is for readers to see the artistic differences for themselves.
- I think this part (As the main piece of a crossover event, some plot elements) needs to be revised as it currently reads that the “some plot elements” are the “main piece of a crossover event”.
- clarified
- I have a question about this part (but she only speaks to him through her servants because he is not worthy of her attention). I am assuming that Mistress Death is viewing him as unworthy of her attention and that it is not just a fact? Would there be a way to clarify in the sentence that this is her thought/opinion? Let me know if that makes sense as I may be over-thinking it.
- clarified
- This is more of a clarification question for this part (When he is judged mentally unfit for power over the universe, he agrees to give five of the gems to individuals he determines to be best suited to protect them.). Do we know who these individuals are?
- Yes, but only one of them gets mentioned in the plot summary. I've added a link to Infinity Watch, which is the name the team used. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- For this part (The 2018 film Avengers: Infinity War drew inspiration from The Infinity Gauntlet and depicts Thanos collecting the Infinity Gems with the intent to kill half of the universe.), should it be clarified that he successfully gathers all of the gems and kills half of the universe?
- clarified
- Should the article mention Avengers: Endgame?
- I haven't found anything specific to Endgame that's concrete enough to use. I'll update after the film's release if need be.
Wonderful work with the article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @Aoba47:. Please let me know if I've clarified to your satisfaction. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Good luck with the nomination this time around. You have put a lot of great work into this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Solrad 1
- This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.
There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:
- Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.
- The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.
- I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.
- I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).
- Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.
- You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299
References
- ^ matt billie (August 23, 2010). "sun". In Stephen b. Johnson. Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 300–303. ISBN 978-1-85109-519-3.
- ^ Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities, Naval Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies (2005). "Chapter 8". Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. p. 157. doi:10.17226/11299. ISBN 978-0-309-18120-4. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2019.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- Let me look at the "Poppy Satellite" source more thoroughly before I pass judgment on it.
- "Vanguard 3" is incompletely referenced.
- "SOLRAD 1" is incompletely referenced.
- You appear to reference Significant Achievements twice.
- I may need to be convinced that Mark Wade's website is a reliable source.
- The Chicago Daily Tribune source is a broken link. It probably needs more bibliographic information, especially a page number.
- Kahler and Kreplin 1991 has a problem WITH CAPS LOCK BEING LEFT ON.
- I need to be convinced Andrew LePage's website is a reliable source.
- Check author name format. Friedman doesn't match.
- The satellite tracking source is incompletely referenced. I'll need to dig a little to assure myself that's RS, but hardly my biggest concern at the moment.
Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Drive by comment by Nick-D
In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator notes
This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Argento Surfer
I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
- "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)
- Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.
- "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)
- The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.
- Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.
- It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.
- Done, with reference.
- " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.
- but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)
- "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.
- I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.
- "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.
- Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.
- "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"
- "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?
- Fixed both issues.
- "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.
- Fixed above.
- " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."
- Thank you. Fixed.
- "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.
- Removed parent issues.
- "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.
- fixed
- "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?
- yes!
- "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?
- fixed.
- You say now that it flew twice more successfully, making three in total, but the GRAB article says two in total. Which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is an interesting article, but the text is often unclear and it is some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:
- A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.
- Copyedits were great, thank you!
the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard
: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.
- Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.
- Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?
- I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.
- Struck; I'd prefer something more direct, but I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.
the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...
: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?
- I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)
- Is there a suitable link for Soviet air defense radar network in the lead? Perhaps Russian air surveillance radars?
- That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).
- OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you recommend a source for that?
It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment.
The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."
- Done, thank you. :)
Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the drewexmachina.com page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?
- Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.
The drewexmachina.com page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.
- I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.
The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster.
The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to newspapers.com so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."
- rephrased.
These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun.
Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".
- SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.
"Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.
- With hyphen. :) Fixed.
I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.
- Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.
- I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests
: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?
- The latter.
- Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.
Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected.
If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?
- Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!
The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".
- Done!
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
I've struck everything except the point Maury responded to. I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments: I had not heard of this very interesting project and I'm glad it's come up here. However, there is definitely a missing section about how the ELINT worked.
One of the sources has some details, and reading between the lines I see how it worked. Basically it did not record anything, instead it simply took the output of its receiver's IF stage and mixed it with a VHF source and back out it went to be picked up on the ground stations. So it could only be used when it had line-of-site both ways. Judging by the size of the ground station antennas, it looks like the downlink was around 1-200&mnsp;MHz, so that's why the Soviets didn't see the signal on their own receivers. Very clever!
Having been through FAs in the past, I feel bad about holding up any FA, especially because I don't have a good source that fully describes the system. I'm perfectly happy passing as-is as long as we don't have to re-FA when I do find the info and add it. I have no idea when that might be, I'm still in the midst of working my way though the UK sets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Maury! Thanks very much for looking at this issue. When I started SOLRAD, it was kind of as an aside, but then I kept finding more and more information to add. I agree that this kind of information is valuable, but I also worry about inundating the reader with too much information. For the average encyclopedic reader, that GRAB listened for air defense radars (I don't even mention that these are the radars that coordinated AA missiles) is probably sufficient, just as I don't go into detail how an ion tube works.
- Which is not to say this information should not be added -- I'm all for making the articles as complete as possible (and defense stuff gets neglected since it was classified and rather arcane). It's just important that the information be presented in a concise and accessible manner so as not to detract from the context of the whole piece.
- Anyway, if you think it's FA-worthy now, and you want to improve it later, I'm obliged to you on both counts. I'm certainly game for reviewing whatever you add. :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's operation is easy to explain. Unless anyone objects, I'll add a section based on the NRO document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here is what I propose adding:
During World War II the RAF Coastal Command began deploying a series of radar systems to detect German U-boats on the surface. As the technique improved, the Germans found themselves under constant attack and deployed a series of radar detectors to give the boats time to dive.[1]
In the post-war era, the use of radar in the anti-submarine role became widespread, and the need for better radar detectors became pressing. One such system was worked on by Reid D. Mayo of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This solution used a spiral antenna connected to a crystal detector tuned to microwave frequencies. The system was small enough that it could be placed inside the submarine's periscope, which allowed the submarine to check for nearby aircraft while remaining safely submerged.[2]
In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying the S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile. Details of its "Fan Song" radars were measured by electronic reconnaissance aircraft flying off the borders of the Soviet Union, revealing their rough location and individual operating frequencies. This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance routes across the border by keeping their distance from the sites, but information on the sites further inland was lacking. Some experiments were carried out using radio telescopes looking for reflections off the Moon, but the information collected was not particularly detailed.[3]
At the time, the NRL was heavily involved in Project Vanguard, the US Navy's effort to launch a satellite. When a snowstorm trapped Mayo at a Pennsylvania Howard Johnson's with his family, he began to consider using the periscope receiver system on a Vanguard fuselage to map Soviet missile sites. While his wife and children slept, he began carrying out calculations on the restaurant's placemat, and determined that the detector should be able to measure the signals as altitudes just over 600 miles (970 km).[2]
The concept was very simple. A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it travelled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them on the 108 MHz telemetry frequency out a turnstile antenna. Ground stations around the world would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although the receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]
When he returned to Washington, Mayo presented the idea to Howard Lorenzen, head of the NRL's countermeasures branch. Lorenzen promoted the idea within the Department of Defense, and six months later the concept was given an official go-ahead under the name "Tattletale".[2]
- That's absolutely beautiful. Here's is my suggestion:
- I propose that this NOT be added to SOLRAD 1 as it is quite long, comparatively, and goes into more detail than needed for the article. Where this would be absolutely FANTASTIC is the GRAB article, where I've wanted to put this information, which you have presented perhaps more cogently than I ever could. I think that would tie things together nicely, and in fact, set up the whole GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B sequence for Good Topic status. --Neopeius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: I think a condensed version of Paragraph 5 (second to last) of what you wrote would go wonderfully right after where I currently have (under Spacecraft) "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]" But the full definition would best go on the GRAB page.
- How about:
A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it traveled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them to ground stations below, which would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although GRAB's receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]
(and we'd need the complete citation)--Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: I have added the above and also the frequency transmission for GRAB (139MHz). I think the article is ready to go. Can you please sign off, and also provide the complete Bamford reference? Thanks very much for your help! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the changes made address the completeness problem I see. The article glosses over the history of this system, and I'm not sure why. I suggested adding a total of four paragraphs, which hardly seems long for an article of this relatively short size. Additionally, unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the NRO sources the elint was broadcast on 108 and the 139 was used for commands and status. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Maury. As this article is about the spacecraft, which was a dual mission, I made a deliberate decision not to overly emphasize one aspect over the other. Again, I think this information is great and best included on the general GRAB article.
- Also, while I am not disinclined to briefly add some more of the information you want to include, I cannot do so without the Bamford source, which I've now asked for three times (not to sound snippy! :) That's just what's holding me up...) Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: Again, I am amenable to including material from the Bamford, but I'll need the full citation and, if possible, a URL for direct access, to do so. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Bamford is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5
I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looking forward to it! Things should be pretty close to done. --Neopeius (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–59), --> "the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–1959)" because MOS:DOB
- composed of the Project Vanguard engineers unlink "Project Vanguard".
- Like Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical unlink "Vanguard 3".
- massing 19.05 kg (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kg) No U.S. customary measurement system?
- via four whip-style 63.5 cm long antennas mounted No inches.
- varying from 611 to 1,046 km in altitude No miles.
- the planned 930 km circular orbit Same as above.
- less than 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec How much is cm² in U.S. customary measurement system?
- over a circular area 3500 nautical miles in diameter --> "over a circular area 3,500 nautical miles in diameter" and link nautical miles
- intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–65. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–76. --> "intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–1965. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–1976."
More comments
- "19.05 kg" no lbs in the infobox.
- "(42.0 lb)" the "0" isn't necessary (in the lead and the infobox).
- By WP:UNIT the U.S. customary measurement system should be primary and then metric units.
- Just let you know that cm and km in the article are written in British English (centimetres and kilometres instead of centimeters and kilometers).
- Lbs were in the infobox...
- Fixed.
- Also per WP:UNIT, in scientific articles, SI comes first. Also, mass in pounds is meaningless. :)
- I'm using the Wikipedia {convert} template. Is there one that works in Murican?
That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- All changes made, though I loathe the need for conversions. The scientific community exclusively uses metric. We might as well start putting in furlongs, rods, and fathoms conversions. :)
- The only change I could not make is 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec -- there is no English conversion, and turning cm² to English while keeping the other components metric would produce a meaningless chimera unit. That said, I did find that, although the erg is still commonly used in astrophysics (the province in which SOLRAD's findings clearly reside)m nevertheless, I converted ergs to Joules for universal application.:* @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments
Done?
Hello all. I have done my best to accommodate all revision requests. I believe this article is ready to go. I am pinging all those who commented; please make a final review and let me know if you support/oppose/are neutral. And thank you all so very much for the time you've put into making this article excellent. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you ever need similar assistance from me.
Thus far, I have support from CPA-5, Argento Surfer, and Dudley Miles, as well as conditional support from Mike Christie (I've incorporated Maury's suggestions as far as I feel is appopriate for this article).
@Squeamish Ossifrage: @Mike Christie: @Nikkimaria: @Kees08: @Gog the Mild: @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Crater (constellation)
This article got a good going-over at GAN. There are 30 constellation articles that are Featured, hence provide a good template, and I think this is within striking distance of FA-hood, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments
- 4.1, 141 in the following doesn't look cool: "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun." Shouldn't this be "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, and is/some/ 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun."?
- Support on sources (verifiability). Checked all, except a few inaccessible books, and are okay.AhmadLX (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Not to contradict the above editor, but I have quite a few problems with references and reference formatting.
- Dude my support is on verifiability, not on formatting. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Book-form sources need ISBNs when appropriate. Ideally, they should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Many online ISBN converters will let you correct ISBN-10s or unhyphenated ISBN-13s.
- Publication locations for book-format sources are optional, but they are all or nothing. Many of yours have them, but not all.
- Article titles may be either in sentence case or title case, but you need to choose one and be consistent.
- The Chinese-language AEEA reference is pretty much just a raw external link. It is not formatted correctly and lacks, well, most essential bibliographic information.
- Why is Ridpath a reliable source?
- This is science writer Ian Ridpath - he has written popular astronomy guides and won awards etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)
- This is science writer Ian Ridpath - he has written popular astronomy guides and won awards etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unlike books, periodicals generally don't require a publisher unless that information would serve to prevent confusion. For stuff like Sky & Telescope, its inclusion is actively discouraged.
- You should be consistent about whether you shorten long lists of authors to et al. or list them in full.
- For Kunitzsch and Smart 2006, it should be Sky Publishing, not Sky Pub.
- "Gaia Data Release 2" has two identical entries in the reference list.
- Nope, I'm wrong.
ThreeAt least four! Okay, lots more than that. You need to use SOME method to condense these. I don't know if there are any other sources with this problem. It makes evaluating the reference section far more challenging than it should be. - I'm not sure the best way to have this - is the one reference with links to different data Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I like to think of myself as science-literate, but this gets pretty deep into the weeds of astronomy sourcing for me to be comfortable with making definitive statements. So please let me know if I'm understanding things correctly! The only difference between the various citations appears to be the VizieR link. This presents, to me, two possibilities. 1) Is the information being cited actually available (in the plain, anyway) in the base source—the Astronomy & Astrophysics publication? If so, then the VizieR links can perhaps be omitted to make the sourcing easier to manage (if they're very important, perhaps introduce why in footnote?). 2) If you're relying directly on the VizieR entries, then the citations should be restructured to indicate that's what you're citing. Or, perhaps, I've gotten the entire situation wrong? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- The anser is "sort of". Many astronomy articles have results or data covering a large number of objects (sometimes in the thousands). The article listed here, will not contain a table listing all the results. What you have to do is find the page that lists the data and enter the identifier, which will give you this. The table that supplies this data is not viewable in the article itself, only the online search tool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I like to think of myself as science-literate, but this gets pretty deep into the weeds of astronomy sourcing for me to be comfortable with making definitive statements. So please let me know if I'm understanding things correctly! The only difference between the various citations appears to be the VizieR link. This presents, to me, two possibilities. 1) Is the information being cited actually available (in the plain, anyway) in the base source—the Astronomy & Astrophysics publication? If so, then the VizieR links can perhaps be omitted to make the sourcing easier to manage (if they're very important, perhaps introduce why in footnote?). 2) If you're relying directly on the VizieR entries, then the citations should be restructured to indicate that's what you're citing. Or, perhaps, I've gotten the entire situation wrong? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm wrong.
- You sometimes give volume and issue for The Astronomical Journal, and sometimes only volume. Be consistent (and volume and issue is preferable).
- Seligman is not properly formatted (URLs are not site names). Also, why is this a reliable source?
- The profile suggests he knows what he's talking about :). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- ...but not agreed on this one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain that he does, in fact, know what he's talking about. But our self-published source use guideline requires the self-published author be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published". He holds a Master of Arts degree in astronomy and his career has principally consisted of teaching at a community college. Regardless of the merits of his web resource, I'm struggling to see how its use is compliant with WP:SPS. He is not an "established expert" in astronomy (or any narrower field thereof). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- The profile suggests he knows what he's talking about :). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, galaxies can be tricky to find info on. Had to remove some info. Ok over to you @Squeamish Ossifrage: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
At this time, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis of the sources used or reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- ’’ 2nd-century ‘’ — Is this MoS? I’d write second-century
- ’’ John H. Rogers’’ —who he? Perhaps nationality and job so we know why he matters?
- ’’ Alpha through Lambda’’ —Although capped in star names, should be lc here
- ’’ the white dwarf is unable to be seen’’ —’’cannot be seen’’ is tidier
- ’’ periodically ignites and erupts’’—perhaps clarify this isn’t combustion?
- I can't see a neat way of addressing the last point either. Most of Squeamish Ossifrage's comments seem to be in hand, so happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack
First comments, did not read everything just yet:
- He proposed that Corvus and Crater (along with the water snake Hydra) were death symbols – unclear to me: It was previously mentioned that they possibly were not separate constellations in Mesopotamia, combined into the Babylonian Raven? When was the constellation first seen as distinct?
- Ok, it is discussed on pages 25 and 26 of this paper, with another mention on a table on page 19. I have tried to convey the source as accurately as possible without interpretation. It talks about the cup, raven and water snake being a "group" mostly but then isn't clear from the table whether the stars of Crater are just incorporated into the raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- (MUL.UGA.MUSHEN) – is this Akkadian language? Maybe worth a mention?
- According to our Babylonian star catalogues it is Sumerian not Akkadian...
trying to clarify in the source if possible...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)not explicitly mentioned in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- According to our Babylonian star catalogues it is Sumerian not Akkadian...
- These two constellations – "these two" means Crater and Corvus? But why not Hydra?
- The three brightest stars—Delta, Alpha and Gamma Crateris—from a triangle – Is it supposed to be "form"? But I wonder if it makes sense to mention that three stars are forming a triangle: they always form one, except for when they are on a single line?
- Nut sure, but wouldn't it make sense to describe the shape of the constellation as well (the green lines seen in the infobox picture)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- traditionally called Alkes "the cup" – what language is this, may be worth adding?
- While reading through the list of stars I was repeatedly wondering where the discussed stars are located within the constellation (some stars have this info, others do not). Unfortunately the map does not show all of them.
- Early in wikipedia, all the IAU maps were imported to use. They (and about 99% of maps) generally only incorporate the brighter stars. I am not sure why this is, It'd certainly make the map "busy". Maybe there is a belief that hardcore people really wanting to know where a star is will just use the coordinates....not sure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Otherwise a very solid work, not much to criticise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok @Jens Lallensack: do you have further queries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Any reason why this book isn't used? It has much more detail on the mythology part. For example, it explains why the water snake would be an excuse (something that let me wonder while reading this article). Also, it states that after being casted on the sky, the crow is prohibited to drink from the cup; wouldn't this also be an important fact to add? The book even contains a brief description on the shape of the constellation (see comment above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I have never come across that book in google book searches! Yes it is very useful! Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any thoughts on the additions I suggested (why is the snake an excluse; crow is prohibited to drink from the cup)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to add those tidbits. Now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to add those tidbits. Now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any thoughts on the additions I suggested (why is the snake an excluse; crow is prohibited to drink from the cup)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I have never come across that book in google book searches! Yes it is very useful! Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments
Support
It mostly looked good, although I had to edit in a couple of places. There's just one minor nit:
"The largest star in the constellation, Epsilon Crateris...": Perhaps the largest naked eye star in the constellation? Otherwise I don't know how this claim can ever hold up.
Other than that, I support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Colin M
Mostly prose-related.
- Is it appropriate to capitalize 'Southern Celestial Hemisphere'? It's not capitalized in that article.
- There is no star brighter than third magnitude. This is a weird way to start a paragraph. Presumably you mean in the constellation? It kind of comes off as an absolute statement.
- A few copy editing issues in Phylarchus paragraph...
- Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater: the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. The colon kind of gives the impression that what follows (up to the end of the sentence) will be the origin. I would structure the paragraph more like Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater. He told how the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. Its ruler, Demiphon...
- 'its' not capitalized at start of sentence
- Seems appropriate to wikilink at least 'Eleusa' or 'Troy' (and possibly character names if they're significant enough to have articles?)
- its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year, which he subsequently determined by lottery. I find this wording just a little awkward. 'which' is clearly supposed to refer to 'the choice of maiden', but it doesn't quite follow grammatically. Maybe break up the sentence again? Its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year. Demiphon declared that he would choose a maiden by lottery, but did not include his own daughter.
- Later, Mastusius killed Demiphon's daughters... Paragraph previously referred to daughter singular.
- What's a 'lunar mansion'? Can that be wikilinked? Or it might be simpler to trim that detail (it seems peripheral to the topic at hand - if the reader wants to learn more about the Vermillion Bird of the South, they can click that article link)
- Again, 'Vermillion Bird of the South' isn't fully capitalized in the corresponding article. Are you sure it's appropriate to capitalize here?
- If you're going to have this 'In other cultures' subsection, shouldn't the content about the Babylonian Raven also go there?
- I think the 'Stars' and 'Deep-sky objects' sections could do a better job of providing context to the reader and following the spirit of summary style. The 'Stars' section starts by giving some good context about the first few stars mentioned and why they're noteworthy in the context of the constellation (e.g. they're especially bright, or they're positioned at some extremity). But starting around R Crateris, the text gets fully entrenched in the pattern of just listing stars (and their statistics) one after the other without giving any obvious indication of why we should care. I would try to lead with that indication of noteworthiness. e.g. Seven star systems in Crater have been found to host planets, including BD−10 3166, WASP-34, and HD 96167 which each host planets with minimum mass approximately half of Jupiter's. In 2012, it was discovered that the sun-like planet HD 98649 has a long-period planet companion, at least.... I'm far from a subject-matter expert on this, but I feel like you could trim some of the specific statistics (unless they're important and contextualized in prose) from these sections. Readers can always look up stats at List of stars in Crater or at the corresponding article for the particular celestial object, right?
- Have you thought about having a 'History' section? You mention in the intro that the constellation was listed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC. There are some more facts about the historical development of the constellation sprinkled in the article (e.g. that its official boundaries were set in 1930 by so-and-so, that Flamsteed at some point conceived of it as a combined constellation with Hydra, and gave them some designation). I wonder if there's more to be said about its status over time (and whether it would be worthwhile saying it in one centralized section). Just an idea.
- my take on it is that would be a bit clunky and essentially divide it pretty much the way it is now. Even though the 1930 material is nearly a century old, it is still current so calling it historical would be misrepresenting it really. Also the ancient material as a body I thought is more exacting than a histoy label. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
-Colin M (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Coord notes
Looks like we still need an image licensing check and, given Squeamish Ossifrage's caveat above, another set of eyes on source reliability and formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi-5 (Australian band)
This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed one Featured Article review. I have been working on improvements over the past three years.
With the review, I am willing to put in any amount of work to make the promotion possible. I will answer any questions and am happy to make the adjustments that you see fit. I am looking for constructive criticism so that the article can improve. I have kick started the process by fixing all of the dead links on the page. Please alert me if any more links fail to work.
Thank you for taking the time to check out this review. SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- In its prime, the group was one of the most popular musical acts in Australia, with several top 10 albums and a series of ARIA Awards. The group is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and would be the perfect time to jump on board for this review. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Shaidar cuebiyar: I know you reviewed the page when it became a Good Article in 2016; if you are interested in helping out with the Feature Article review, it would be greatly appreciated! All good if not. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Aircorn: Thanks for promoting the "sister article" of this, Hi-5 (Australian TV series) back in 2017. If you did have any spare time, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this article on the band as a whole. I would be thankful for any support! Regards. SatDis (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
Resolved comments
|
---|
Great work with the article. I have only provided comments for the beginning portions, and I will complete the review later in the week if that is okay. I just wanted to put these comments up as a start and a placeholder for my future review. Apologies for the large amount of comments. Do not be discouraged, as the article looks in really good shape from what I am reading so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
|
Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber
Resolved comments
|
---|
Thanks for pinging. Will take a look soon (and jot queries below): Overall looks better than previously, but is still sprinkled with some vague positive statements that hint of advertising. These need to be removed or rephrased. There are also alot of quotations that should be rewritten if possible.
I'll read more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
|
Comments by Dweller
Resolved comments
|
---|
|
Sources review
Resolved comments
|
---|
At this stage the review is only partial. I have not yet taken an overview of the quality and reliability of the sources, nor have I carried out any verification spotchecks. I need to scan the reflist further for possible formatting issues. Here are a few points that have come to my attention thus far:
I intend to complete the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Continuing...
Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) |
- Thank you @Brianboulton:, addressed concerns.SatDis (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Support
Resolved comments
|
---|
Hi, thanks for your input in Lorde FAC. I'd like to return the favor, and I'm really bad at giving reviews. Right now I have no major concern over the prose, but I need more time to read through the article several times, and may give my support then. Best of luck, HĐ (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
Support I have re-read the article several times and feel that the prose is of FA quality. The article is very informative and meticulously sourced. — HĐ (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator notes
Support for promotion is quite weak right now and there has been little progress here in the last few weeks despite being on the Urgents list. It will have to be archived shortly unless there is significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)
- Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush.
This article uses a wide variety of sources—about Dalí, the Colossus, this painting, and others paintings in the series—to describe and contextualize this work. It is certainly the most comprehensive take published; much more ink has been expended on Dalí’s more significant oils. Nearly a year ago it passed a good article review, and after some further refining and additions, it is ready to be featured. Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- File:The_Colossus_of_Rhodes_(Dalí).png needs a stronger FUR - for example "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"
- File:First_Version_of_The_Colossus_of_Rhodes.jpg also needs a stronger and more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. I've expanded the FUR for the second file. The first already says "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"; does it need more? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - my point was that that bit doesn't really convey any information. If something isn't replaceable, of course it's irreplaceable. The question is why - this FUR needs a bit of expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria. I've expanded the rationale for both images. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk
- I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Shouln't all the wonders mentioned under Background be linked?
- I've linked them in the new subsection; as they were before, they weren't linked because strictly speaking the names referred to the works by Dalí.
- I think there could be a bit more background on the ancient statue itself, for example that it was destroyed, which would also explain to the reader why theories about how it was constructed had to be made.
- Added a subsection to "Background" detailing the history of the Colossus.
- Similarly, the statue itself should probably be linked presented in the background section rather than in the description, since that's where it is first discussed?
- Done.
- "In this context the painting "does not look extremely original." According to who? Such subjective quotes should be attributed in text.
- Good point. Added.
- "Dalí copied the likeness of the Colossus put forth by Maryon, clearly depicting hammered plates of bronze, and showing the same tripod structure with the statue supported by a piece of drapery.[18]" This, on the other hand, could go under description?
- My intent is for "Description" to really just be a physical description of the painting, and "Themes" to be about what Dalí was influenced by.
- "and had a segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates" Why past tense? This describes the painting and not the actual statue?
- No idea. Changed.
- "giving "a vaguely Surrealist touch" to Dalí's work." Again a direct quote, who says this?
- Eric Shanes. Added.
- "focus on cinema and the historical and scientific" focus on cinema, the historical, and the scientific?
- Done.
- "and the loosening of his grip on surrealism." His loosening grip on surrealism?
- Done.
- "Nor does Dalí offer a particularly original take on the Colossus, which is heavily influenced by Maryon's suggestions" You say basically the same under background, so it seems repetitive. But it probably belongs down there rather than background.
- Removed the redundancy.
- Anything on the circumstances of the commission itself and why they weren't used?
- No, I looked but couldn't find anything.
- Who made the movie?
- Added that it was "a travelogue featuring Lowell Thomas". There were apparently five directors, which doesn't help much.
- "and religious" Only stated in the intro.
- It's under "Themes":
the end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious, to Dalí's work.
- It's under "Themes":
- "by a hanging piece of drapery" I think it could be clarified that this was sculpted, I first imagined a giant piece of actual cloth...
- Changed to
the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.
- Changed to
FunkMonk, thanks for your comments. I've added a subsection on the history of the Colossus and moved the discussion of Maryon's paper there, which I believe responds to the majority of your comments. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - the extra context is nice, someone might think it is a bit too detailed, but I'll leave that to other reviewers to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil
The article is very strong on historical context, and especially gives insight as to why Dali painted this frankly, very poor, work at the end of his career, having moved to the States. Fascinating stuff; none the less, the "description" section is under cooked, apart from it being described as "massive" etc. Would like to see more on the colors, themes, iconography, and esp. perspective, etc, etc; maybe because to my eyes none are equal to his earlier work. Don't see any aesthetic appraisal here as of yet, although have every confidence in the nominator in this area, and look forward to supporting.
The nominator should feel quite free to revert any of my changes if viewed as preferences, or if intended meaning has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed edits, Ceoil. I've made some changes, which I have tried to explain in the edit comments; please see what you think. As to the description, I've added another line based on a book I just ILL'd, and am due to pick up another one soon, so will see if I can add anything more. I suspect that there will not be much, however; most works that talk about this painting do so in passing (see here, for example, and a Google Translated copy of the Colossus section from book I just received), and focus less on the painting than on how it exemplifies Dalí's later works. How would you recommend dealing with this? I know Wikipedia tolerates largely-uncited plot summaries for fictional works, but am not sure if using one's own eyes to describe the basic attributes of a painting is similarly appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. Given we have blue links, not sure that, by my estimate, almost a third of the article needs to be devoted to a general overview of the Colossus of Rhodes. I would trim this drastically. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jumping in, I can't really agree, Ceoil... Yes when you say it like that, a third seems a lot, but I think when one reads it it does help one better understand the subject at hand. I mean lose the Caeser quote by all means, as we discuss "astride" anyway and even have a related image, but I think the rest works well and leads logically to the last para, which is obviously very closely related to the painting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would at least, as you say Ian, loose the quote, and the claim beginning with "the others are the". Would also drop "The Colossus is among the least recorded of the seven wonders" - "There are no extant contemporary depictions; the only evidence is textual" is enough. That's the kind of thing that could be used to trim it down and make proportional to this short article overall. I do think there are structural issues overall with the page, which to be fair to the nominator, I haven't had time to think about and detail yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jumping in, I can't really agree, Ceoil... Yes when you say it like that, a third seems a lot, but I think when one reads it it does help one better understand the subject at hand. I mean lose the Caeser quote by all means, as we discuss "astride" anyway and even have a related image, but I think the rest works well and leads logically to the last para, which is obviously very closely related to the painting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe also such details as "Sutton Hoo helmet.[10][11]" and "On 3 December 1953" (we already know 1953) and "the Society of Antiquaries of London" are extraneous. Not opposed to shorter articles being at FAC if focused and concise. I'm gathering this page is near the sum of the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense all around. The Shakespeare part is definitely indulgent. My turn to turn towards the sack, so I'll incorporate tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused, is antiquated language, and this stuff is all over the article. Why not just "He produced other art works for the film, but they were not included in the final production." Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The suggested rephrasing shifts the topic of the sentence from the seven paintings made for the film to the six other paintings, not including the one on the Colossus. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose.The article presents as art historical, but is too slight on such content for my taste. The majority of its content is on background detail, rather than on the painting, as promised in the article title, but barely described on reading. I have major issues with art articles being padded out with introductory paras on the mythology and histography of the subject matter and then on the artist; this is endemic on es. and de. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, I've incorporated most of the changes recommended earlier. The two things I've thought best to keep are the names of the other seven wonders—an article about one is incomplete without mentioning all, it feels—and the clause about what Maryon is best known for (the Sutton Hoo helmet), which is somewhat tangential, but interesting (it's how I learned about the painting). Generally speaking, I do think we have different perspectives on this article. It's unclear how restructuring it by essentially combining half of it into one jumbled section, as you suggested, would make it better, but even more than that, I feel that removing the contextual information would make the article markedly worse. The section on the Colossus was added because of a suggestion, by FunkMonk, in this very FAC; meanwhile, the sources that discuss this painting use it to typify Dalí's later career—interested in the historic and scientific, not the surreal—and so not discussing Dalí's later career would leave this article substantially incomplete. As to your last comment, if you can indeed find a source in the bibliography that is not used in the article, I would be very surprised. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I suggested a jumbled section. Quite the opposite. I don’t think the structure as stands is coheriant, esp with two, as framed, general history / bio background sections opening after the lead, that as framed, could be served by blue links.Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, your "rough suggestion for structure" suggested in this edit was to create a six-paragraph "Inspiration and themes" section which seesawed between topics, and hid discussion of the painting—the focus of this article—in the middle. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hense the usage of the word rough, and note I immediately reversed that test edit. My worry here, is that after this page, barely dyk standard painting articles can now be considered at Fac. Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon? Easy... Napoleon was a...Ingres was a ....half the article done now. My oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, maybe we should ask the others to weigh in here: FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Casliber, & Brianboulton. I think the background information helps explain the painting, but I'm also not the most objective person here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- What I would point out here is we can't write what the sources don't, so if no source describes the painting in more detail, there is little we can do. And the FAC criteria do not demand this either, we can only reflect what the sources say. As for the added context, I think some of it could maybe be cut down, but I think there was too little until I asked for it. But Ceoil can of course compare the article before and after and see what is preferred:[21] If it is decided the earlier version is better, I will not oppose if it is reinstated, I only think it helps the reader, and makes the article more comprehensive, but this is of course a subjective issue. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, maybe we should ask the others to weigh in here: FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Casliber, & Brianboulton. I think the background information helps explain the painting, but I'm also not the most objective person here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hense the usage of the word rough, and note I immediately reversed that test edit. My worry here, is that after this page, barely dyk standard painting articles can now be considered at Fac. Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon? Easy... Napoleon was a...Ingres was a ....half the article done now. My oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, your "rough suggestion for structure" suggested in this edit was to create a six-paragraph "Inspiration and themes" section which seesawed between topics, and hid discussion of the painting—the focus of this article—in the middle. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- yes as long as it’s not lost is that at least half the page is background; not a good enough ratio, imo, for an FA, which will enviablly be held up as a standard to aim for. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ceoil, I've trimmed a bit from "Background." Reading it over again, however, I'm a bit confused by your general objection to this section. "The Colossus" section has a paragraph about the Colossus, generally, but the second paragraph is about Maryon's theory of the Colossus; this is directly relevant to the painting, which cribs Maryon's theory. The "Salvador Dalí" section, meanwhile, has a paragraph about Dalí's fascination with Hollywood, and a second paragraph about his commission for these paintings. Both of these seem quite relevant to the painting, evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters, and his specific commission for the movie. So what, specifically, would you remove? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- yes, the trimming now makes the section much more focused. Still not sure if "Salvador Dalí" is the most well chosen title for that section; it gives the impression of more general background padding, rather than as you say, "evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters".
- Changed to "Dalí and Hollywood".
- his popular 1930s surrealist movement heyday - It wasn't "his" 1930s surrealist movement - "The peak of his popularity during the 1930s surrealist movement"
- In the lower right is signed "Salvador Dalí / 1954, "is signed" sounds very old fashioned; "The lower right had corner bears the signature...."
- Reworded:
In the lower right Dalí signed and dated the work "Salvador Dalí / 1954".
- Reworded:
- his loosening grip on surrealism - his move away from - its not that he had an intellectual hold on it even back in the day
- "his move away from" does not appear in the article. Are you suggesting that that phrasing replace "his loosening grip of surrealism"? If so, no problem with that.
- A piece of drapery hangs around the waist of Helios and from his left arm - "around his waist and left arm"
- Reworded:
A piece of drapery wraps around the waist of Helios and hangs from his left arm,
- Reworded:
- What is a "segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates"
- How would you rephrase? It means lots of (relatively) small, individual bronze plates stitched together into a whole. It is also seen in the image of the painting (which I wish could be larger), and alluded to earlier:
Made of hammered bronze plates less than 1⁄16-inch (1.6 mm) thick, Maryon said, the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.
- How would you rephrase? It means lots of (relatively) small, individual bronze plates stitched together into a whole. It is also seen in the image of the painting (which I wish could be larger), and alluded to earlier:
- The end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious to Dalí's work - The cause and effect is left vague here, ie you dont say why.
- Reworded to give WWII less credit for the transformation. Per the source, "after the end of the Second World War a newfound interest in scientific, religious and historical subject-matter meant that the authenticity of Dalí's exploration of the subconscious began to drain away, to be replaced by something far more calculated in effect. Moreover, after 1940 a new banality often entered into Dalí's work".
- a 1954 ink-on-cardboard work - Rather than "work" which is vague, maybe "composed with ink-on-cardboard".
- Do you mean "a work composed with ink on cardboard"? That would still have the word "work", but in any event, I think the "ink-on-cardboard" modifier adequately illuminates the otherwise vague word "work".
- Compared with Maryon's paper, wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ, the painting "does not look extremely original". Wot. This is hard to parse on several levels; not least because the source its self seems confused or at least hyperbolic - "extremely original" seems like promo guff. Also " wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ" sounds dated, as if very old sources were used.
- Reworded the tense ("writes" rather than "wrote"). I think de Callataÿ's is just going for understatement.
- Are all the listed sources used as foot notes.
- As indicated earlier, yes.
- Thanks for taking another read, Ceoil. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ian
As a bit of Dali fan (as much for his involvement in Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or as for his paintings, admittedly) I'm hoping to find time to recuse from coord duties to review -- consider this a placeholder till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian Rose, I look forward to it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Couple of comments later, time to hit the sack now after my ce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is one of a series of seven paintings created for the 1956 film Seven Wonders of the World, each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. -- do you think we could lose the repetitive "each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World"; sure it leaves no-one in any doubt but I think it follows that if you're creating seven paintings for a film about the Seven Wonders...
- That's mostly there to add the link to the Wonders (which also appears in the body). I've changed it to
each depicting one of the eponymous wonders
, but can just remove if you think that's still too obvious.
- That's mostly there to add the link to the Wonders (which also appears in the body). I've changed it to
- In 1955 he also executed a similar copy, Walls of Babylon -- do we mean "another version of Walls of Babylon"? If so, simpler to express that way I think.
- Done.
- Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun that he is the god of -- I wonder (pun unintended) if we can lose that dangling "of"; "Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from his domain, the sun" or something like that?
- Reworded.
Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun over which he reigns
- Reworded.
- That's about it prose-wise. Obviously a minor work in Dali's catalogue but not as bad as all that I think -- there is at least nice irony in the sun appearing more powerful than its god at this moment. Article seems comprehensive, and I'll take Nikki's image review as read. I wouldn't mind someone else checking sources but may be able to if no-one else does for while. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Ian Rose. Responses are above. It's definitely not one of his more interesting paintings, but it's quite nice to look at—moreso than his others in the series, I think. And much as it has been said to exemplify a later-career lack of creativity on Dalí's part, it is interesting to see how he incorporated a sculptor's theory of the Colossus into his own depiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Couple of comments later, time to hit the sack now after my ce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few changes since my last copyedit/review; no concerns for the most part but I did feel constrained to tweak a few things here and there. I'm certainly leaning support but I guess I'd like to see how Ceoil feels about the current version so we can all agree on the final cut. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Cas Liber
Taking a look now...
The Colossus of Rhodes was a very large statue...- not fond of "very large" here, "monumental"? or put in the purported height?- Agreed. (It was originally "massive," and then changed in a copyedit above.) Have changed to "monumental."
Dalí's most important works are dated before 1940, when he was preoccupied with the subconscious and the nature of perception- "most important" is subjective, maybe "best-known"?- Changed to "most recognized." I don't think "best-known" quite encapsulates the point, which is less about how other people identify his works than about how the works are considered to fit into, and advance, artistic movements.
Otherwise reads well. Agree with Ceoil that the description section is a little light, but then again if there is no source elaborating then you can't really do much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Casliber. Responses are above. Agreed that "description" is somewhat short, but I've added everything I've been able to find that describes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Fix ping: Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk)
- Ultimately, its a tentative/weak support from me. It reads well, but a little bit problematic that under half the prose relates to the work itself. However, if there is no more on the description then that is not actionable, and I'd not remove any of the context as the context is about right I reckon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Spotchecks not done
- The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. You might add that the Badoud source language is French. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source review, Brianboulton. Added the "in French" tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- The reproduction ia not very good. Would it be possible to use the better one at [22]?
- Do you mean the quality, or the resolution? Unfortunately due to fair-use restrictions, we're limited to a small image. I chose the one in the article because of the colors, which are brighter than the one you link to.
- I meant the resolution, although that may be due to the larger size. The image you use has brighter colours, but probably not more realistic. The Dali Foundation image is likely to be better and the clouds look to me the wrong colour in the image you use. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The image in the article was copied from here, which is of reasonable resolution. Dalí does seem to have painted some clouds similarly (see, e.g., here, and it would be hard to tell which image is closer to reality without seeing the painting in person. The one you point to also has a watermark (bottom center), which I'm not wild about.
- "was donated to its present location in the Kunstmuseum Bern." Donation to a location sounds odd to me. I would say donation to the museum.
- Changed to
was donated to the Kunstmuseum Bern, its present location.
- Changed to
- "stood by the harbour of Rhodes for more than half a century in the third and fourth centuries BC" Fourth is wrong. The wiki article on the statue says that it was constructed in 280 BC and my 1973 Britannica says that it stood for 56 years until destruction in c. 224.
- Whoops. Fixed.
- It seems too off topic to list the other wonders in the background section. An alternative would be to link them below as Dali's paintings e.g. "of the Temple of Artemis" instead of Temple of Artemis.
- I started to do this, but it got slightly awkward: Dalí painted The Pyramids (depicting the Giza pyramid complex) when the wonder is technically only the Great Pyramid of Giza, and he painted The Walls of Babylon when the wonder is actually the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Perhaps you can think of a more artful way of doing this. Other options would be to just remove the list, or perhaps to include at the bottom of the page the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World template, as I have just inquired about on the talk page.
- I would delete. You link to the article about the wonders. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done.
- "In his ninth-century AD Chronographia, Theophanes the Confessor recorded that its ruins remained until 652–53" As Theophanes was writing 150 years later perhaps "according to him" rather than he recorded.
- Changed to "he wrote."
- "The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused." This sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "The paintings were not used in the film."
- Changed to
The paintings were ultimately not used for the film.
- Changed to
- In the discussion of frauds in the last paragraph I am not clear whether you are referring specifically to lithographs of the Colossus or of his works as a whole.
- The sources discuss Dalí's lithographs generally, not specifically referencing those of the Colossus of Rhodes (except for the first sentence,
Lithographs replicating The Colossus of Rhodes are also frequently offered for sale.
). That said, the fact that you can buy 202 lithographs of this work at once suggests that they are subject to the same problems as Dalí's other lithographs. I've also looked at a few books on his lithographs, and didn't see specific mention of those of the Colossus.
- You need to clarify that "these works" refers to his lithographs in general, not just those of the colossus. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done.
- The sources discuss Dalí's lithographs generally, not specifically referencing those of the Colossus of Rhodes (except for the first sentence,
- This seems a good summary considering the unfortunately limited sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dudley Miles, responses above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Dudley Miles. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Cardiff City F.C.
This article is about Cardiff City, a Welsh association football club playing in the English Football League. I nominated this in late 2017 and it failed due to a lack of reviewers. It's been a while since then, I've tweaked, tuned and improved bits here and there, submitted it for a peer review and had an editor from the WP:GOCE give it the once over. Hopefully it'll get across the line this time. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Cas Liber
I enjoyed reading the article and think it is on its way to a shiny star. Just a few quibbles.....
During the 1960s, Cardiff began qualifying for European competition for the first time as a result of winning the Welsh Cup.- is this because they just won the Welsh Cup for the first time or because the cup winners became eligible for the first time?- Expanded slightly
[After dropping into the Third Division, ]Cardiff were continuously in the lower two divisions of the Football League between 1985 and 1993- suggest bracketed bit is redundant as you've just mentioned the relegation at the end of the previous para.- Removed
In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828-seat stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million- does "state-of-the-art" actually mean anything?-Removed
- what kit did the club play in between 1930 and 1992? There is no diagram of that one...
- @Casliber: Thanks for your comments, I've fixed the first three issues. In regards to the kit, I was trying to include the most significant changes in the club colours and the kit was pretty consistent in that time. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the table position graph - Done
- File:Cardiff_City_squad_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps were taken to try to ascertain authorship?
- I'm unaware of the original publisher and author. The picture is not used in any of the print sources I possess, the only two uses I have found on the net are very unlikely to have any claim to the rights. I have searched the British Newspaper Archive and it appears the photo was not published in any newapaper at the time either which is why I used the license linked to the picture. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- This needs a US PD tag, and the UK tag in use requires you to specify in the image description what steps were taken - suggest adding some of your commentary here there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- File:CardiffCityFC_League_Performance.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this graph?
- The image is the work of another editor so I'm unsure of the source they are using. I have added a source that supports the information to the caption.
- Three of the four FURs for the historical logos are quite generic, and the fourth is incomplete - these need to be stronger to warrant the inclusion of all four. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: In all honesty I'm not good with image licensing at all. If the use of the club badges is objectionable, I would have no problem with their removal. Thanks for taking a look, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've added the US PD tag and provided a brief commentary of searches undertaken for the squad image. I've removed the older logos. Kosack (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've emailed one of the websites that have it in use to see if they have the information. Until this can be established, I've removed the image and added two new ones, both of which are much more stable license-wise. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Hzh
Comments resolved
|
---|
The article looks good. I will start with a general comment, other comments will be added over the next few days. The history section can be tightened a little - since there are already separate articles on the history, the history in the main article should be more of a summary. For example, the description of the goal scored in the 1927 FA Cup final can be shortened, also the word "clumsily" seems a bit editorialising, and not given in the source (same for the wording
Some of the following are just suggestions, you are not obliged to keep all the suggestions. I noticed some quirks, but everyone has their own, I'm not sure if they are worth mentioning.
That's more or less it I think. Good job. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
|
- Support I'm satisfied that the article is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Hzh (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thorough review, much appreciated. Kosack (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I had a look through the article, and it looks very good. Could I have a little explination on "The team's longest period in the top tier of English football came between 1921 and 1929. Since then, they have spent a total of nine seasons in the top flight, the most recent being in the current 2018–19 Premier League season." in the lede. Could this not comment that the team were in the top flight for (presumably) 18 years, and had this run as well? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Perhaps a reword to "The club has spent 17 seasons in the top tier of English football since, the longest period being between 1921 and 1929. The team's most recent season in the top flight is the current 2018–19 Premier League season." Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I can't see too much else that would cause me any concern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Quality and reliability
- I did the source review at the previous archived FAC. I raised questions about the quality/reliability of several sources, but concluded that I was "happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't." Same applies now. The sources in question were:
- English Football League Tables
- Welsh Football Data Archive
- Historic Football Kits
- 11 v 11
- To these I will add: The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation
- Source links
- All working per the external links checker tool
- Formatting
- Ref 39: The Independent should be linked on earliest mention (it is linked in ref 69)
- Ref 62 missing publisher location: Also, ISBN should be in the consistent format used in the bibliography
- Ref 72 missing retrieval date
- Ref 76: "cricketarchive.co.uk" is not the publisher, it's what has been published. You could use "work=" and add "publisher= Cricinfo"
- Ref 104: missing publisher details
Subject to the above, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks, I've fixed the issues you found above. Just to clarify the extra source, the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) is widely accepted as a reliable source and is used extensively. The organisation's charter provides a clearer overview of the website's information process. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coord notes
Looks pretty close but a couple of things:
- I'd expect to see the content under Manager history cited; likewise Backroom staff, unless the citations at the top of the Players section are supposed to cover that too.
- @Ian Rose: There were sources on the table headings but the blue of the table was making them difficult to see. I've moved them under each table now to make them clearer. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- As this would be the nominator's first FA if this is successful, unless I missed something above, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would like to take care of it.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979
One of the most bizarre incidents in the history of cricket occurred in 1979, when Somerset captain Brian Rose chose to declare his team's innings after one over, manipulating a loophole in the rules which meant they couldn't suffer a heavy defeat and be knocked out of the competition. Needless to say, it didn't go down well ("It's not cricket!) and Somerset were subsequently thrown out of the competition. I think this is a really interesting subject for an article, and hopefully you'll agree. It's been subject of both a Good article review and a Peer review, and now I submit it for your thoughts. Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment from Dweller
Smashing article. Lack of illustration is a shame. Could File:Colin Atkinson, Somerset cricketer.jpg help? Personally, I'd consider splitting the last section into what happened in the immediate aftermath and therafter. There are also parallels to this in other sports, might be worth thinking about how to handle them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Dweller: Thanks, I've split the final section as suggested, though I struggled with the headings. Hopefully what I've settled on works? I'm trying to find an image; unfortunately the fair-use image rules wouldn't allow us to use that one of Atkinson. I'm hoping to get a free image of Brian Rose, which would work well, but we'll see how I do. Otherwise, like Sarastro suggests below, I'll probably stick one of the ground in. Are there are parallels that particularly spring to mind for you? Harrias talk 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds a good way forward on the photos. Try this Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification). Probably POV to include in article but maybe see also? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't included a specific link to that, as reading around the site a bit (getting caught in a "Wiki-black hole") I've come across so many different occasions. I have however added a link to Match fixing in a new See also section, which I think works better. Harrias talk 21:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds a good way forward on the photos. Try this Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification). Probably POV to include in article but maybe see also? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Support – I was one of the peer reviewers; the article was in good shape then, and has since got better with some excellent stylistic polishing. I think the article meets the FA criteria. George Orwell, who was famously faddy about double negatives, might have boggled at "not dissimilar" but I think it's OK. No other drafting points this time round and I am happy to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words Tim; the double negative has been removed now through other copy-edit work. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
...and that he thought there would be repercussions if they went ahead [with the plan]- bracketed bit can be dropped without losing meaning
Rose defended his actions, claiming that he "had no alternative", - be good if dequoted, such as "Rose defended his actions, claiming that he had no other option,"
otherwise a good read and fulfilling FA criteria. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Casliber:, both suggestions have now been made, thanks for having a look. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments
- The intro you've written here sounds better than lead section. The article is about an incident, but the lead starts directly with details without introducing the incident.
- There are so many quotes, 20 I could count. Many of them, like "improper", "wholly indefensible", "had no alternative", "support the team whatever their decision", are unnecessary and can be described without quotes.
- Aftermath section discusses change of laws of the game after this incident and other similar incidents. They are important but are absent from the lead, which should be brief representation of all important details of the article.
- "Not dissimilar" suggests that the two incidents weren't very similar either. But the details show they were very similar. AhmadLX (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lead seems good to me now, other points addressed; Support. AhmadLX (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator as I can't resist this one and I've been promising to look at it for ages. I've copy-edited but as usual feel free to revert anything. Just a few points to consider, none of them too crucial. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm very uncomfortable using Cricket Country as a source. It will pass RS comfortably enough but I'm not sure it's high quality enough for FA; the author of that article also has an unfortunate habit of basing his writing on wikipedia articles or match reports from other sources. I suspect most of what he writes is available elsewhere, and it may be better sticking to more established sources.
- I assume that it was just inferred from the scorecard, given that it isn't that hard to work out. That said, I was uncomfortable basing part of the match report on the scorecard alone. I've added the scorecard as a supporting reference alongside Cricket Country, how do you feel about that? Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I think you would be perfectly justified in just using the scorecard. That's all Cricket Country has done. I'd still prefer it removed altogether and just using the scorecard as I don't consider it a high enough quality source. Especially as it's just based on the scorecard. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I assume that it was just inferred from the scorecard, given that it isn't that hard to work out. That said, I was uncomfortable basing part of the match report on the scorecard alone. I've added the scorecard as a supporting reference alongside Cricket Country, how do you feel about that? Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure we can really make a link between this and the underarm incident. I realise that Martin Williamson makes the same link in his article, but I don't think the two events are really comparable. If you wanted similar incidents, there were a few incidents in the 1930 Championship where Yorkshire similarly bent the rules, led astray by Bev Lyon... but without an article making this link explicit, I don't think we can do it without a bit of OR.
- Honestly, I disagree. As I draw upon in the article, both Arlott and Frith actively discuss a hope that this incident would be the end of captains putting winning ahead of the spirit of the game, and it is (to me) a pretty clear parallel. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Between you and Ian, I seem to be horribly outnumbered here. The sources agree, so it's fine to keep in. I just think that it's a real stretch to connect them as Martin Williamson does. It's a shame there's nothing that connects some of these unsporting incidents a little more directly. There's probably something out there somewhere, but I don't know of anything. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I disagree. As I draw upon in the article, both Arlott and Frith actively discuss a hope that this incident would be the end of captains putting winning ahead of the spirit of the game, and it is (to me) a pretty clear parallel. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with a few points above: an image or two would be nice. Maybe one of the ground? But I doubt we could really justify using an non free images as there isn't really one person with whom this is associated.
- I agree that we can't use a non-free image. I would ideally like one of Brian Rose; I'm in the process of sounding out a couple of possible sources, but we'll see what comes of that. I'm not against a picture of the ground, but the oldest image we have is from 2006, which is not going to reflect the look of the ground in 1979 particularly well. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, we could maybe expand the lead slightly; and perhaps the quotes could be trimmed as we don't really need them all.
- Does The Cricketer have any opinion on this? We quote from it a little, but I wonder if it passes judgement at all?
- I find it extraordinary that more people haven't written about this, given that some of the participants in the game aren't exactly shy in expressing opinions. But I've looked, and there's nothing. Other than the issues noted here, the sourcing is otherwise impeccable.
- Source formatting is absolutely fine Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Once these little points have been looked at, I'm more than happy to support. When I've a little more time, I'll do a spot check of sources too. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. Quick question for you; both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive list Holder as bowling a maiden over, but there is a no-ball listed. My understanding is that a no-ball negates it from being a maiden? Clearly I have to follow the sources irrespective, but it strikes me as odd? (Maybe it was a more recent change that extras count against the bowler in this way?) Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can't remember when exactly the rule changed, but no balls and wides weren't added to the runs conceded by a bowler until after this, some time in the 80s I think. It meant that you could bowl a maiden over with wides and no balls in it. Ping me when you've finished with the lead. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. Quick question for you; both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive list Holder as bowling a maiden over, but there is a no-ball listed. My understanding is that a no-ball negates it from being a maiden? Clearly I have to follow the sources irrespective, but it strikes me as odd? (Maybe it was a more recent change that extras count against the bowler in this way?) Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Ian -- Like Sarastro, I just have to recuse as coord, good thing there's three of us! At this stage I've looked through the article once without copyediting, and it read quite well, but I'll go through again as soon as I can and ce where I think it'll help.
- My first point though is that I have a different perspective to my friend and colleague Sarastro re. the underarm incident -- perhaps it's because I'm an Aussie but even before I finished the lead I was comparing the two, and wondering if and when it'd be mentioned. I haven't looked at the referencing yet but my feeling is that if it can be reliably sourced then it's fair to put it in. Anyway I'll go through the article in detail when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Walked through again now, copyediting as I went -- I eliminated the "improper" quote mentioned above, and "not dissimilar", and of course am happy to discuss my edits if any concerns. I didn't find the article too quote-heavy, the main thing for me is that those used are attributed in-line, which I believe they are.
- Sourcing-wise, I think in general I'll be happy to defer to Sarastro and others more expert than I re. cricket articles. I did spotcheck the two citations related to the underarm incident, and the first at least seems to buttress my contention that it's reasonable to mention it here (assuming Williamson is considered a reliable source naturally) as he discusses both in the one article.
- Summarising, I'll park things here for now and try to return if the prose changes in response to other reviewers' suggestions, but overall it still looks pretty good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Just reviewing for readiness here—are there any further remarks from you or do you plan to revisit? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I know how tough it is on a nominator when the changes you make on one reviewer's advice are disagreeable to another reviewer but unfortunately that's the case here. I found the original lead quite adequate, setting the scene in the first sentence or two and then telling us the controversy, rather than jumping right in as we do now. Further, I notice the sentence To avoid suffering a heavy defeat that could eliminate them, Rose worked out... has been changed to the passive it was worked out. We also have In contrast, Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham were all very vocal in their support ... -- unless the cited source highlights the situation, I would call In contrast editorialising. I'm happy to see some quote fragments paraphrased, but apart from that I'm afraid it looks like one step forward and two steps back since I last read the article. Now I could have a go at tweaking the last-mentioned points but I think we need to find consensus re. the lead first (let alone the article title, if that is still under consideration). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX: Any chance you could take a look at Ian Rose's comments and see if we can find a middle ground? It seems silly for me to be too reactionary, given that you hold pretty opposing points, and without some compromise down the middle, I'm unlikely to please you both. Harrias talk 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I respectfully disagree with Ian regarding the first point. He sees it subjectively; he knows the detail already and as such sees first para as unnecessary stuff. Casual reader, however, would come to the article knowing little in advance. Article title is not descriptive, so the reader would expect to know the topic from intro sentence. From original version of the lead, it is unclear what the article is about, unless you are halfway through the lead. To me, the current version of the lead appears to be logical summary of the article: introduction & importance is established in the first para, detail in the second, aftermath in the third. I have no problem with other points he mentions. Thank you. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose and Laser brain: Any advice on how I can proceed? Harrias talk 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I've recused coord duties here, I'm speaking purely as a reviewer. First of all, I'm afraid Ahmad has assumed wrongly -- I'd never heard of this incident before reading the article and hence, rather than seeing it subjectively, I'm the casual reader of which they speak, which is precisely why I believe the original lead that set the scene and then described the controversy was the better one. As to how to proceed, perhaps we could ask the other reviewers to weigh in re. the lead's form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose and Laser brain: Any advice on how I can proceed? Harrias talk 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I respectfully disagree with Ian regarding the first point. He sees it subjectively; he knows the detail already and as such sees first para as unnecessary stuff. Casual reader, however, would come to the article knowing little in advance. Article title is not descriptive, so the reader would expect to know the topic from intro sentence. From original version of the lead, it is unclear what the article is about, unless you are halfway through the lead. To me, the current version of the lead appears to be logical summary of the article: introduction & importance is established in the first para, detail in the second, aftermath in the third. I have no problem with other points he mentions. Thank you. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX: Any chance you could take a look at Ian Rose's comments and see if we can find a middle ground? It seems silly for me to be too reactionary, given that you hold pretty opposing points, and without some compromise down the middle, I'm unlikely to please you both. Harrias talk 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. Work has been a nightmare this week, but I'll take a look at this later today. I am still alive! Harrias talk 11:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Okay, I've reverted the lead back to more or less its original form. I've tinkered a little bit, which goes only with the "Rose worked out..." to "it was worked out" switch. Basically, reading around the sources a bit more, I realised that it wasn't clear that it was Rose who came up with the plan, so I had to soften the language slightly. I removed "In contrast" as it was superfluous anyway. Harrias talk 20:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments by 213.205.240.200
- Does the title need disambiguating? It has no mention of cricket (were no other sports matches played between county teams representing Worcestershire and Somerset in 1979?), and Worcestershire CCC played Somerset CCC twice in the 1979 County Championship. One of those matches, also played in May 1979, was Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979.[24] (Both teams batted once and scored 300 or more, Joel Garner took 6 wickets, and it ended in a draw, so perhaps this first-class match will never get an article, but it happened.)
Perhaps adding "24 May" to the title would fix the isuse, or a mention of the Benson & Hedges Cup? 213.205.240.200 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's an excellent point. There's an [unreferenced!] mention in the text of the "Worcester affair". Worcester affair would overcome the problem and be a more enticing title to boot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers, but what do the sources say? Is there a common title, or can we make one up? Worcestershire v Somerset, 24 May 1979 would probably suffice. Or Somerset declaration controversy?
(Incidentally there was a very different "Worcester affair" in 1705.[25][26] It did not end well.) 213.205.240.200 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers, but what do the sources say? Is there a common title, or can we make one up? Worcestershire v Somerset, 24 May 1979 would probably suffice. Or Somerset declaration controversy?
- That's an excellent point. There's an [unreferenced!] mention in the text of the "Worcester affair". Worcester affair would overcome the problem and be a more enticing title to boot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is all about an incident, so IMO the title should reflect that; something like Worcestershire v Somerset Incident or Worcestershire v Somerset Cricket Incident or ODI Declaration Incident Somerset?Somerset declaration controversy sounds cool ;)AhmadLX (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)- If further disambiguation is considered necessary (I'm not convinced that it is) then I would suggest Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 Benson & Hedges Cup. I am personally not a fan of titles such as "xxx controversy", but I'm generally happy to follow any consensus. Harrias talk 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- There have been calls for images. How about this signed scorecard? Can we have that under fair use? It amply demonstrates Vanburn Holder's bowling analysis of "1-1-0-0 (0w, 1nb)".
- I think we could probably make a fair use justification for the scorecard, although the lack of source issues (who owns the copyright) can sometimes cause arguments. For me though, the main issue is that by the time it is shrunk to meet the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines, we wouldn't actually be able to read much more than the "Benson & Hedges Cup" bold title, so it would be a bit pointless. Harrias talk 21:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- One or two of the players would be good, and an image of New Road, Worcester? Several suitable at commons:Category:New Road, Worcester. 213.205.240.200 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd love pictures of some of the players, but the only ones really relevant to the article (Brian Rose, Peter Roebuck, Colin Atkinson, Roy Kerslake, maybe Donald Carr or even Vanburn Holder or Glenn Turner) don't have free images.
- As mentioned above, I'm not averse to using one of the ground, but I will hold off in the short-term to see if I can dredge one up of Rose or any of the other key players at all. There is room for both, sure, but it just depends in terms of balance. Harrias talk 21:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Ref 8 shows a subscription template, but the Cricketer article is available from the link. The same applies to ref 17.
- Ref 14 supports the statement: "The same thing happened in Watford, where Glamorgan and the Minor Counties were due to play." A minor issue is that play did actually start at Watford, where four balls were bowled, whereas "The same thing happened" implies that rain prevented any play at all. More to the point, however, is the irrelevance of the statement. Unless I'm missing something, what happened at Watford had no bearing on the Worcs v Somerset game, and the detail appears to be mere padding.
- Had that game gone ahead with a result, Somerset would have had a better idea of what result they would need. It's tangential, but the suggestion across the sources is that the fact that Glamorgan could secure a big win against the Minor Counties was on the players' minds. In terms of it being "The same thing"; both games had no play on 23 May, the four balls bowled were on the second day, but I agree that the source provided does not support this; I will find an alternative. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: I've now updated this to the CricketArchive scorecard, which while behind a pay-wall, confirms that there was no play on the first day. Harrias talk 20:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Had that game gone ahead with a result, Somerset would have had a better idea of what result they would need. It's tangential, but the suggestion across the sources is that the fact that Glamorgan could secure a big win against the Minor Counties was on the players' minds. In terms of it being "The same thing"; both games had no play on 23 May, the four balls bowled were on the second day, but I agree that the source provided does not support this; I will find an alternative. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 22: The Daily Mail is not considered to be a high quality, reliable source.
Spotchecking reveals no issues. With the exception of the DM the sources meet the standards criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks; fixed two, need to check the other. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (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. |
Albert Speer
The article was promoted to FA status in 2008; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship and utilises sources that are not independent of the subject, dated, and / or questionable. Specifically, it relies heavily on:
- Speer 1970, 1976, & 1981 (28 citations), and
- Fest 1999 (55 citations)
It largely ignores a full-length biography by Martin Kitchen published in 2015, after the article had been promoted. FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. The FA criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...; and (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. Here are comments on Speers memoirs, as well as on Fest. I'm borrowing in part from Assayer's analysis posted on the TP here:
- From a review of Germany and the Second World War: "In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role."
- From de:Magnus Brechtken: Speer's image was shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny. (...) Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography."[5]
- From Martin Kitchen: Fest's biography of 1999 is "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. (...) Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways, they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing."[6]
References
- ^ Watts 2018.
- ^ a b c Bamford 2007, p. 364.
- ^ Bamford 2007, p. 362.
- ^ a b McDonald & Moreno 2015, p. 7.
- ^ de:Magnus Brechtken: Persuasive illusions of the Self: Albert Speer’s Life Writing and Public Discourse about Germany’s Nazi past, in: Birgit Dahlke (ed.): German Life Writing in the Twentieth Century, London: Camden House 2010, pp. 73-4, 85.
- ^ Martin Kitchen: Speer. Hitler's Architect, Yale UP 2015, p. 11
In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's account. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article; it does not meet the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Here a sampling of prior discussions:
- May 2017: Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs
- November 2017: Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Revisiting FA status
- March 2019: Talk:Albert Speer#March 2019 edit
Parts of the article reproduce the Speer myth and it is thus non-neutral. I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to remove Speer's self-serving POV. However, some of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and because the Talk page does not appear to be well-trafficked, I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Featured article review
- I'll probably have more to say later, but these do not seem to be valid grounds, nor that this is a good use of FAR's limited resources when many old FAs have long swathes of unsourced material. If every time a new bio came out, we FAR'd an article, we'd have no FAs left. This seems to arise directly from the content dispute here. You favor Kitchens, who denigrates the author you do not like, so it goes, that's academia for you. Regarding Speer's books, many of the remaining Speer citations deal with direct quotations, statistics, Speer's youth or old age, or matters where Speer was the only surviving person in a conversation to write about it. Where I think you could be most useful with your use of Kitchens is during the WWII/Armaments Miracle section.
- The bottom line is that FAR is a poor way to establish the principle you are espousing, that we should not use Speer's books at all. Remember, there was a very widely participated in FAC, and at the time, there were many more cites to Speer; the community found it met the criteria and the criteria are more or less the same today. I would suggest a RFC to try to establish the principle you seek, then try applying it to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I did not realise that there were so many page watchers. I transcluded the review to the talk page; hopefully, more editors will see it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Agreed that there are many in FAs in far more need of review. This article is comprehensive and well-written. There is no requirement that an article use every available source, or that it be updated whenever a new book is published. If Kitchen contained some ground-breaking research requiring a reappraisal I might be more sympathetic; but to quote a typical review:
In truth, there is not much that is genuinely new about Martin Kitchen’s Speer; he draws liberally on the work of other historians, closer to the coalface, who have published partial accounts and micro-studies. He is not even the first English-language biographer to challenge Speer’s lies; that honour fell to Dan van der Vat in 1997.
- Dan van der Vat's The Good Nazi: The Life and Lies of Albert Speer (1997) is used extensively in the article. And I wouldn't have given him the honour of debunking Speer either, when there is Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (1995). Or, to go back further, Matthias Schmidt's Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (1984). All of which are used in the article. Kitchen uses the same sources as the article, so I'm doubtful that much could be garnered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. About 10% of the article is using a WP:Primary source. The FAC don't preclude there use, however I don't see Mein Kampf being used to source 10% of Hitler's article. Granted it is a reasonably well written article. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. If this article has issues, they should be addressed by improving the article and, where appropriate, seeking consensus on the talk page. I'm worried that this may be just part of an unbalanced, ongoing campaign to discredit, downgrade or remove articles on German people connected with the Second World War. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I was about to initiate a FAR review by myself, because the article does not meet the criteria for featured articles, in fact, it never did. It is neither comprehensive, nor well-researched. During the last four decades major research has been conducted and published on Albert Speer, including Magnus Brechtken’s seminal biography Albert Speer. Eine deutsche Karriere, in 2017.(review in German) Further recent works include Isabell Trommer, Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main 2016; Sebastian Tesch, Albert Speer (1905–1981), Wien 2016; Wolfgang Schroeter, Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos, Paderborn 2019. These works, particularly Brechtken and Trommer, have conclusively shown, that the works by Joachim Fest, including his bio from 1999, and Speer’s memoirs, both of which have been extensively used in writing the article, are unreliable sources. Brechtken also takes issues with the book by Gitta Sereny, arguing that Sereny ignored much of the available scholarship, including Matthias Schmidt’s work. He concludes that the book was a psychological mosaic of quotes and memories rather than a biography and should not be confused with historical scholarship. (p. 550) Brechtken has mixed feelings towards van der Vat’s work. He praises it for its critical approach, but states that it mainly follows Schmidt’s work.
- That said, it has been argued that Matthias Schmidt’s and van der Vat’s works have been used for the article. But for what? There are now two references to Schmidt’s work. The first is for the sentence: He wanted to become a mathematician, but his father said if Speer chose this occupation he would "lead a life without money, without a position and without a future". The second is for another quote: Goebbels would note in his diary in June 1943, "Speer is still tops with the Führer. He is truly a genius with organization." That's it. In other words, Schmidt’s work is merely used for quotes by Speer’s father and by Goebbels. But Schmidt’s research is mainly about Speer’s leading role in the eviction of Jewish tenants in Berlin and about Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust. The chapter "Actions towards Jews," however, is mainly based upon Fest’s biography and thus it seems that Speer was merely “aware” of the activities of his (own) Department. Susanne Willems, who has written another study about Speer’s policies (Der entsiedelte Jude. Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau, 2002, 2nd ed. 2018) argues that Speer was responsible for 90% of the deportations from Berlin. [27] Why is Speer quoted that Himmler tried to have him physically isolated and so forth, but Schmidt's debunking of this legend is not quoted? Van der Wat’s bio is equally exclusively used as a reference for trivial information. That Speer received a twenty years prison sentence, for example, is not the kind of information van der Vat’s work is about. So the whole chapter "Assessment" is at best a lukewarm representation of the current historical scholarship. The chapter "Imprisonment" presents a detailed account of what Speer read. His role in the Holocaust, however, is relegated to a few sentences under "legacy and controversy". That’s completely out of proportion and not comprehensive.
- I could go on and on, but it would lead much too far to discuss all the myths and mystifications by Speer that are retold in the article. Just one example, sourced to van de Vat, may suffice.
- "Following the publication of his bestselling books, Speer donated a considerable amount of money to Jewish charities. According to Siedler, these donations were as high as 80 percent of his royalties. Speer kept the donations anonymous, both for fear of rejection and for fear of being called a hypocrite." (van der Vat, 1997, p. 348)
- Brechtken discusses “Speer and money” at length (pp. 492-506). He argues that it was part of Speer’s strategy to indicate that he would donate money to Jewish charities. In 1971 Speer told the Daily Express that he had donated 200.000 Marks. In fact, he repeatedly donated only three up to four-digit amounts, but, as Brechtken argues, by strategically presenting numbers and spreading rumors Speer effectively won writers over for himself. (pp. 501f.)
- Some of the problems have been named in Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs of May 2017. I rewrote a section myself, [28] It is true that Martin Kitchen did not present ground breaking new research in 2015, but he summed up German scholarship, previously overlooked in the English speaking world, and made it easily accessible to the English speakers. As my difflink clearly shows, historical scholarship had not been used for major parts of the article. The article rather fell and still falls for Speer’s tricks, lies and mystifications. Thus it is biased and not well researched. To try to improve it, would mean to completely rewrite it.
- To use the bio by Martin Kitchen would certainly be a good starting point but will not suffice. One last example: Speer came up with the idea of "ruin value" while working on a Spiegel interview in October/November 1966. He reiterated it in his memoirs. It has been debunked as early as 1981 by Angelika Schönberger. (Brechtken, pp. 542-544), and there are a couple of German articles about the legend. Kitchen buys it (pp. 34-5), it is presented in the English Wikipedia as fact and there is even a whole article on it. But it is still a legend.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Over-reliance on some sources is neither here nor there; errors of fact are another matter entirely. That is of great concern. Now, you are within your right to say that you are not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. (Although personally I think you are ahead of everyone else here.) Spending a year reading through books on Speer, some of them in German, holds little appeal for me too. So what do we propose to do? As Koffman said, the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through the normal editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point is not Over-reliance on some sources [my emphasis], but heavy reliance on unreliable sources, which necessarily means over-reliance. Consequently, the article is full of distortions, mystifications and lies. These are not simply errors of fact, but willfully misleading obfuscations by Speer. Wehwalt claims, Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed. Is he? Speer is quoted at length claiming that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. Next, historian Martin Kitchen is quoted, that Speer had intimate knowledge of the Holocaust, as if KItchen was stating an opinion, while historiography has established beyond doubt that Speer did not only know of the Holocaust, but was actively involved. This is false balance. Wehwalt insists on keeping that Speer quote[29] and a problematic lede section.[30] So the problems go well beyond factual errors.
- I was assuming that there would be a consensus to maintain the highest standards in terms of information. Thus, I assumed that, once the problems were named, there would be an attempt for improvement at some point, i.e., that the article would be cross checked with the most recent biography (at least that one available in English). If that would not happen, the article could not be kept on FA level. I contributed my share, but I am not an expert in architectural or economic history. So, this is where we stand now, and given some of the comments made during this review, it is about time to put the finger on the problems. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I will read through the WP:PRIMARY refs and note those that aren't being used with care. I share the grave misgivings noted above however. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ref 31: Speer surrounded the site with 130 anti-aircraft searchlights. Speer described this as his most beautiful work, and as the only one that stood the test of time.[31]'
- Ref 54, 55, 56: As the war progressed, initially to great German success, Speer continued preliminary work on the Berlin and Nürnberg plans.[54][55] Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.[56]
- Ref 59: On February 8, 1942, Minister of Armaments Fritz Todt died in a plane crash shortly after taking off from Hitler's eastern headquarters at Rastenburg. Speer, who had arrived in Rastenburg the previous evening, had accepted Todt's offer to fly with him to Berlin, but had cancelled some hours before takeoff (Speer stated in his memoirs that the cancellation was because of exhaustion from travel and a late-night meeting with Hitler). Later that day, Hitler appointed Speer as Todt's successor to all of his posts. In Inside the Third Reich, Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, saying that he only did so because Hitler commanded it. Speer also states that Hermann Göring raced to Hitler's headquarters on hearing of Todt's death, hoping to claim Todt's powers. Hitler instead presented Göring with the fait accompli of Speer's appointment.
- Ref 69: On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there (5.7 percent of the work force died that month).[68][69]
- Ref 71: In January 1944, Speer fell ill with complications from an inflamed knee, necessitating a leave. According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.[71]
Comments I agree that this is no longer of FA standard, and substantial work would be needed to restore it to this standard. The article is not neutral or accurate, as it repeats the now long-discredited "Speer myth" about his role in the war and makes little use of the current standard works. It also does not fully cover Speer's life and career. I'd suggest moving to a FARC discussion in the near future. I have the following comments
- I agree that the failure to update the article after Kitchen's biography was released is a serious problem. Kitchen's work is a major reassessment of Speer's life.
- The article also makes very little use of Adam Tooze's 2006 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, which is the standard work on the German war economy and has extensive (and highly critical) analysis of Speer's role and performance.
- When reading this article after reading Kitchen, I was particularly struck by how little attention is given here to Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg. The use of slave labour was perhaps the single most important reason Speer was convicted, and explains why the Allies refused to release him.
- It's very concerning that Speer's autobiography is regularly cited - modern historians treat this work with great scepticism (Kitchen argues that Speer deliberately falsified key elements of it, for instance), so I don't think it's a RS. From some spot checks, some of the statements cited to the book are highly dubious - for instance:
- "During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions." - an autobiography cannot possibly support such a statement about its subject, and Kitchen and other historians argue that Speer actually dodged responsibility for many of his actions and those of the regime, most notably in regards to the Holocaust.
- The account of Speer's appointment to armaments minister is cited only to the autobiography. This is totally inappropriate. Kitchen and several other historians provide somewhat different accounts, with Kitchen expressing doubts over the accuracy of Speer's accounts and suggesting that Todt may have been murdered.
- The first para of the "Consolidation of arms production" section is referenced only to this work, and presents only Speer's account of the power struggle which occurred when he fell ill in early 1944. Speer argues that his weak position was due to him being sick and receiving bad medical care but, from memory, Kitchen also argues that it was due to Speer's incompetence as a manager.
- "Speer stated he was apolitical when he was a young man, and he attended a Berlin Nazi rally in December 1930 only at the urging of some of his students" - why is only Speer's claims being presented here? Kitchen argues that he was fairly (though not strongly) political in his youth. A central theme of Kitchen's work is that Speer's post-war claims to have been a technocrat rather than a committed Nazi were falsifications. Other historians have reached the same conclusion.
- The para starting with "Speer placed his department at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." is wrong-headed. It suggests that Speer was selflessly offering his department for the war effort, despite Hitler trying to stop him. In reality, Speer was a very active participant in the bureaucratic empire-building and duplication which was a key feature of the Nazi regime. Like the other senior Nazis, he ended up with a sprawling and utterly incoherent range of functions, which he was ultimately unable to manage.
- "Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe" - he also oversaw the construction of some of the facilities used in the Holocaust, but this isn't mentioned here. When it is mentioned, it's under a claim that Kitchen only "indicates" this - from memory, he explicitly states this at multiple points in the book. Given Speer's sprawling responsibilities, it's entirely credible.
- The account of the improvement in armaments production repeats the "Speer myth" of him having revolutionised the war economy. Tooze utterly demolished this myth in his book, demonstrating that Speer inherited a rapidly improving armaments industry and then falsified figures to exaggerate the scale of the further improvements. Kitchen confirms this, and also states that Speer emphasised the production of obsolete weapons to keep production numbers up despite these weapons often being useless. Both Tooze and Kitchen argue that Speer was competent during this period, and helped guide further improvements, but that the expansion in output was not due to him.
- The positive account of the system of central management and committees Speer instituted in the para starting with "Speer overcame these difficulties by centralizing power" was also demolished by Kitchen, who demonstrates that Speer's ministry was actually quite weak, and the vast numbers of committees which ended up being established were unworkable.
- "Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing more slave labour from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods" - this implies that Speer was opposed to the use of slave labour. Quite the opposite was the case - while he was not as an enthusiastic a slave lord as some of the other Nazis (for instance, he intervened to have some war production take place in France rather than enslave the French civilians needed for these factories), he was a central figure in this vast crime.
- "On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there " - Kitchen demonstrates that he was not actually shocked, and did nothing substantial to improve conditions.
- "By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany" - this is incorrect. The Allies gained air superiority over Germany in early 1944.
- "However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer was able to overcome bombing losses" - also false. Tooze and other historians have demonstrated that the Allied bombing substancially suppressed German war production (e.g., that it would have been much higher if the bombing had not taken place). This claim is a central element of the "Speer myth".
- "production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months" - not sure that the scale of this improvement is correct, but both Tooze and Kitchen demonstrate that the "improvement" to the speed of submarine construction was largely a statistical mirage - Speer had submarine production moved to facilities which had no idea how to build submarines, and the completed boats were often unseaworthy, with many never entering service or being rapidly destroyed when they did. Speer was also a key player in the fiasco that was the development of next-generation submarines, by pushing an immature design into mass production in inexperienced facilities: almost none of the hundreds of these submarines entered service. The story of German submarine production is actually one of failure.
- "with allied bombing destroying just 9% of German production" - 9% of economic production being destroyed in a month is actually rather a lot. More importantly, the Allied bombing in 1944 crippled the German oil and transportation industries, which crippled the rest of the war effort soon afterwards.
- " Production of German fighter aircraft was more than doubled from 1943 to 1944" - also part of the Speer myth. Multiple historians note that Germany emphasised quantity over quality during this period, and this had disastrous results - the huge number of aircraft which were produced were largely obsolete, and were slaughtered by Allies (which were turning out even larger numbers of better aircraft). The scale of the production also came at the cost of the production of spare parts, which meant that the Luftwaffe had a low serviceability rate.
- "The task force oversaw the day-to-day development and production activities relating to the He 162, the Volksjäger ("people's fighter"), as part of the Emergency Fighter Program" - this project was a fiasco, but this is not noted
- More generally, there seems to be much too much emphasis on the production of aircraft. Other elements of the war economy performed even worse, with Kitchen arguing that Speer never paid enough attention to the production of ammunition (leading to frequent shortages).
- The article repeats Speer's account of his efforts in stopping the "Nero decree". This is also part of the "Speer myth", and Kitchen demolishes it by demonstrating that Hitler soon rescinded this directive, and it was largely ignored by local commanders anyway (modern historians tend to stress the collapse of central command and control in Germany in 1945, with experts such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans arguing that Hitler was largely irrelevant by the end of the war)
- "Eventually, 75,000 Jews were displaced by these measures" - they were then sent to concentration camps, something not noted. Kitchen argues that Speer was aware of this.
- "Much of the controversy over Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust has centered on his presence at the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943" - Kitchen takes a different approach, and demonstrates that Speer was both aware of and actively involved in the Holocaust from an early stage. Kitchen dedicates relatively little attention to Posen as a result.
- "The debate over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust" - I don't think that there has been a "debate" over this. Rather, the claims Speer made were initially believed, but were demonstrated to be false. I don't think that any historians argue that Speer was not aware of and involved in the Holocaust, though they do differ over the timing and extent of this.
- The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
- It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
- There's nothing on Speer's private life. Kitchen covers this usefully, demonstrating that he pretty much deliberately alienated his wife and children. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually a central thesis by Tooze has been deliberately removed from the article by charging that this was an unreliable source.[31] I have quoted some sources at Talk:Albert Speer#Armaments miracle.--Assayer (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I may as well get this show on the road so I've downloaded the e-book of Kitchen and will be reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment much of Kitchen's work is available as a free preview on Amazon UK. It is rare for a new bio on an old subject to add much, but this one does. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I added a little on his joining the party. I'm not a FA writer so it could probably do with some copyedit.Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I made some deletions today and took out what I think is POV, fabrications or undue weight content. There are several paragraphs I can see which need reworking, they just can't be deleted because there is too much content and it would unduly affect the readability of the article. They will have to be looked at later, perhaps by someone else. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm going to remove the third party tag, many of the refs have been updated so it is no longer valid. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop misquoting sources
Certain members have been quoting the book "Speer: Hitler's Architect By Martin Kitchen" as proof of some conspiracy, but not listed pages or proof from the book. After reading the book I have found that it says almost none of the things being claimed in this article. In fact, it portrays Speer as someone who routinely fought with other leaders in order to protect slaves and to avoid killings.
Unless someone can provide actual sources I will remove these claims. Provide actual page numbers and details. Just naming the book is not acceptable.
DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Kitchen uses the exact words "By the time that Sereny and Fest had published their biographies of Speer, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, historians had provided ample evidence that Speer had lied through his teeth". It is on p.361. Maybe it would be better to attribute that statement to him rather than deleting it altogether as you have done.
- Kitchen uses the words "It was not until the journalist Heinrich Breloer presented his biographical film on TV in 2004 that the process of public demystification began." I don't really understand why you've added the "examples" tag because the reference uses the word "demystification" and discusses the topic.
- You added a "who" inline tag after the statement the myth has been discussed at length by historians. The section uses Kitchen, Schmidt and Tooze so that can be attributed to them too.
- You added an "example needed" tag after the statement Speer lied to Fest. It needs a reference to Kitchen for page 360. He uses these exact words "Fest failed to mention Schmidt’s startling revelations in his biography of Speer published in 1999, in his notebook he wrote that while Schmidt’s book was ‘prejudiced,’ the evidence he produced was ‘considerable’. It showed that Speer had kept secrets from him and Siedler."
- This characterisation of Kitchen is not the slightest bit correct. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not a single one of the claims posted above actually have examples or proof or documentation of his assumptions. These kinds of claims must have sources, yet it seems the only sources are his opinions. This does not meet wikipedia standards.
- Kitchen provides no actual examples and just states these things as if they are fact. For instance, how could he have know what Speer was thinking? There is no way, and yet he believes he can read Speer's mind. His mind reading abilities are not an acceptable source.
- It is completely clear that his assumptions do not meet wikipedia standards, as he provides no evidence whatsoever except his own opinion, and does not name a single source for his information. Even his examples he simply lists events and then makes statements of those events with no actual evidence or documentation to back his claims.
- For instance, his war production claims blatantly disagree with all other available sources. If he cannot even agree with very well accepted production numbers then everything he states is in question. Especially since he cannot provide any actual examples to prove his claims. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, we're not going to dismiss a very well reviewed book written by an academic historian who specialises in the World War II era and was published by Yale University Press. You appear to have missed the 49 pages of citations at the end of the book in your haste to dismiss it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Its not well reviewed at all. Its one of the worst written books Ive ever read. It reads like an opinion piece from a tabloid. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards.
- The book is filled with overdramatic statements that are physically impossible to even know. It repeatedly claims to know the mental state of not just Speer, but everyone around him, and even strangers. It rarely sticks to facts and relies instead on his personal opinion.
- He often makes claims such as "Speer's Audience was obviously bored by his low key delivery" and "Speer then played his Trump card by mentioning "vengeance weapons" that would soon turn the tide", or "the men at the front knew this was untrue". The men at the front didnt even know the conversation was even taking place. They arent mind readers, unlike the author. Or at least his claims. It is completely clear from his writing style that he is exaggerating everything he says for dramatic effect, and that THEY ARE HIS PERSONAL OPINION. 174
- Literally everything in the book is overdramatized and unprofessional. Not a single page does not have some dramatic overstatement. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Unless you can find others that agree with you then the changes you want to happen won't. Szzuk (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Continued discussion
- Comment. I've re-read all of the comments above and everything has been covered apart from the things noted below. I don't think there is much to add, a few sentences dotted around. The only other things to do are polish and copyedit unless more changes are specifically requested. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
- It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
- There's nothing on Speer's private life.
- Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
- Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can add stuff on most of that over the next few days, though I'd like clarification on when private life, that is, are we talking post-Spandau? Or about his basically unhappy marriage? But first I'd also like to hear from everyone, how they feel with respect to answering the concerns that prompted this FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding private life, I'd suggest covering his unhappy family life - his marriage before and after prison and Speer's relationship with his children. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the gaps identified above (use of slave labour; Speer's enriching himself during the Nazi era). I would add that Speer's activities as the head of Organisation Todt are not covered; in fact, Organisation Todt is not mentioned in prose at all. Also, since the article has been largely rewritten, the lead needs to follow suit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to get a response to what Szzuk and I were talking about, since you initiated the FAR. I'd like to get a sense of what is needed to close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I were reviewing the article for GA, I would be close to passing it (with the lead re-write, which I assume is coming). Checks for close paraphrasing should probably also happen. I generally don't participate in FA reviews, so I'm not as familiar with the FA procedures, MOS requirements, etc. I would like to hear from others as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I will do the lead rewrite over the next few days. I'm not bothered if someone else does it. If it were done quickly an un-involved editor might hop in unexpectedly or I might err too much. I'd be happy to leave close paraphrasing checks to Wehwalt. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to see if there would be consensus to close the FAR if we do these things, as set forth in the FAR procedures. The goal of such a review of this is, if possible, to maintain the article as a FA. I am simply enquiring as to procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I inquired at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Speer/archive1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Since you indicated your view it did not meet the criteria, I do not see any reason you cannot opine on that further, if your concerns as to the criteria have been addressed, or would be by the proposed work.==Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I"d also like to, if possible, hear from Assayer as well. I'm trying to see if we have broad agreement where we are so we may move to consensus as to what remains to be done. Szzuk, myself and others have done considerable work on the article and I'd like to see if it made a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding of the general rule of thumb is that every issue brought here should be addressed. So everything mentioned (even inadvertently) should be done. This gives editors the opportunity to change the goalposts and forever find new things that need to be done. Szzuk (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: I see what you mean. My npov & sourcing concerns have been largely addressed by the recent rewrites. The comprehensiveness concerns can be addressed by adding content identified in the bullets above by Szzuk. With these items addressed, I would not object to closing the FAR at this stage, with the FA status retained. But it seems that other participants need to weigh in as well, so it's not completely up to me as the FAR nom. That's in part why I inquired at the FAR talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I should be able to add the final paragraph of the lead later today. I also created Speer: Hitler's Architect. Szzuk (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
To do list
- The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
- It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
- There's nothing on Speer's private life.
- Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
- Rewrite lead
- Mention Operation Todt
- Copyedit and paraphrase spot checks
Continued discussion (2)
- I note another user has copyedited the lead and this version was reverted to my original. I prefer the copyedited revision and will put it back in place. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I plan to do the remainder as soon as possible but I've been under the weather. Someone else should do the close paraphrasing since I've added things though I would be happy to do that for others--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am happy for you to look for close paraphrasing in my additions, and I will reciprocate for your additons. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't practical to go through all of your additions because there are so many. However I spot checked half a dozen and there is none. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. On his anti-semitism, neither Kitchen, Tooze or Schmidt have direct quotes or specific writings from Speer that I have seen. We are left to understand his anti-semitism from his actions. I think the article reflects this. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Comparing the article history before the FAR and now I estimate 35% of the article has been updated. I can't see much of anything left to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The concerns that have prompted this FAR have been largely addressed. It would be fine with me to close at this stage, retaining the FA rating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Assayer and Nick-D: what are your impressions so far? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Terry Sanford
- Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject North Carolina, WikiProject United States governors
I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised about it in May have not been addressed. This article was promoted to FA back in 2008 and, as was characteristic of the time, the review was not very rigorous. Terry Sanford was a monumental figure in North Carolina and throughout the southern United States in the 20th century and had a long, acomplished career. Per WP:FACR 1b it is expected that featured articles be comprehensive. This article is simply not a full summary of all the reliable material out there on this man. Some things not well covered:
- He suffered "wounds" in World War II. No elaboration on how he got those, or why he wanted to be a paratrooper in the first place.
- No details on how or why he became an FBI agent (plenty found in the very underused source, Terry Sanford: Politics, Progress, and Outrageous Ambitions)
- Many details on his personal life absent (see above source)
- Sanford left the bureau to work at the Institute of Government (this not stated explicitly in the article), but there are no details of his work there.
- No details on his tenure as President of the NC Young Democrats
- No details on his campaign for governor against I. Beverly Lake, Sr., despite the fact that a whole book (Triumph of Good Will: How Terry Sanford Beat a Champion of Segregation in and Reshaped the South) has been written about it, not to mention the political effects of race in that contest.
Only two small paragraphson his work for NC education, probably his biggest legacy.- No background on the establishment of the North Carolina Fund or evaluation of its success, and no info on his relationship with LBJ and involvement in the overall War on Poverty
- Very little info on race relations politics (I added most of what's there), which played a very important role in shaping his image as well as the face of Southern liberalism and the Democratic Party
- Only the briefest info on how Sanford promoted Research Triangle Park
- Aside from a blurb about his views on capital punishment, not very much other info about his gubernatorial career
- As President of Duke University Sanford had a very important role in trying to right the institution's finances and get more money by appealing to wealthier students (see here), but this is not mentioned.
I've made some improvements but right now I don't have the time to read three books and rewrite a Wikipedia biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've since added more info about his education policy as governor, though details on his work with commuity colleges still needs to be fleshed out. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus
- Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur
This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.
- Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
- Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.
There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[32], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and Lusotitan, I purchased Hone's book. Whats the plan? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[32], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
- Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- References
The following books are currently cited without page number:
- Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3.
- Ride, W. D. L. (1999). "Article 23.9 – Reversal of Precedence". International code of zoological nomenclature. London: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ISBN 978-0-85301-006-7. OCLC 183090345.
- Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M. The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
- Carpenter, Kenneth (1992). "Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America". In Mateer, Niall J.; Pei-ji Chen. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. ISBN 978-7-5027-1463-5. OCLC 28260578.
- Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
- Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
- Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85471-648-4.
Cited with page number, but the range is too large:
- Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.
- Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka. The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
- Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Arbitrary line break
- I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The Tyrannosaurus#Feeding_strategies section needs work and should perhaps have a pov tag added;
- the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
- Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
- There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
- Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all
An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict.[141]" – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- On the history section. I've just been reading through it and noting the earlier comment (that it looks like info is missing) I think it should be re-worked. I removed the mano section and merged it with earlier finds, then added a new section name for skeleton discovery. I'd say now the specimens section name should be changed so the timeline flows. Doing that would mean we're missing 1960s to 1990s (as there were no discoveries 1910 to 1960 or thereabouts). Did anything big happen in those decades? What exactly is missing? And what could the the notable specimens section be called to cover the time period 1990 to modern day? Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The classification section is actually about the same size as some recent FAs like Brachiosaurus and Dilophosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seems this could be wrapped up? Not sure we really need that maintenance tag under description. And not sure if the recent image placement rejig was really an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy for this to be wrapped up. I don't think there would be m(any) votes to demote this if it went to FARC. I'm not convinced we need the tag under description either. I've looked for better pictures on commons, the article deserves some knockout pictures. Sadly we just don't have them available. I've no opinion on their placement. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- In some pretty significant news, the "Scotty" specimen has now been described[33], which should give us something to expand the description section with (perhaps LittleJerry wants to have a look). The big deal here is that it is apparently the most massive Tyrannosaurus (or even theropod?) specimen known... FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates