- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||
|
Nominations
Surrogate's Courthouse
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a historic building in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1890s and 1900s. The courthouse building, originally the Hall of Records, contains dozens of detailed facade sculptures and a vault-like lobby. Like the neighboring Tweed Courthouse (an FA), the Surrogate's Courthouse was mired in controversy through its construction, especially after the original architect died. The term "horganizing and slatterifying" was used to criticize the new architects. Unlike its neighbor, the Surrogate's Courthouse didn't receive the same level of opposition upon its completion, and it's mostly been used as a surrogate's court for New York state, as well as a hall of records. It is a National Historic Landmark and a New York City landmark, and it continues to be used as a courthouse.
This page was promoted as a Good Article a year ago and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Alt texts shouldn't duplicate captions
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Surrogate's_Courthouse_2.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork pictured? Ditto File:Ceiling_mosaic_in_the_Surrogate's_Courthouse_(32325)a.jpg
- Both are public domain in the US (where this building is located) since they were created in or before 1907. I have added the appropriate templates to the Commons file pages. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Surrogate's_Courthouse_-2.jpg: has this image been manipulated? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- This may well be the case, but I cannot currently obtain a non-manipulated image of the interior of the lobby (I can technically access the exterior, but I am not a NYC government employee or someone doing business inside). Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)
Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944. Sturm brought her up to GA ten years ago, and has worked on her sporadically since, we've recently added quite a bit from a couple of new books, and she passed Milhist ACR last month. We reckon she's now ready for FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
- "the Yugoslavs may have chosen a German shipbuilder because the Germans may have subsidised part of the cost". Do we need "may" twice?
- No, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Link abaft.
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "On 23 September, Schiff 50 was attacked by four British Royal Air Force Bristol Beaufighters off the island of Syros in the Cyclades on 26 September". Perhaps decide on one of the dates?
- Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that you usually place a comma after "However".
- Deleted it instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Consider cropping in on the Fl 282 image.
- I'll see what Sturm thinks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
And that is all I can find. What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Ship%2BPhoto%2BZMAJ.jpg needs a much stronger FUR, and is any more source information available? Also, the "unique historic images" tag is typically applied when the image itself is significant, rather than what is pictured - suggest swapping with another tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is it? I thought that only applied when it was a historic image from a press agency? I'll beef up the FUR though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- I prefer in prose to say "between 1928 and 1930 to 1928–1930 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- She does not appear - according to whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- have inadvertently led to the sinking of two Yugoslav passenger ships - did it not sink anything else? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- Even if things are linked in the lede, they need to also be linked in the body. See Yugislava Royal Navy, Dalmatia etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- World War 2 should be nowrapped. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Zmaj was 83 meters (272 ft 4 in) - we haven't actually described the build, nor that they named this ship in the body yet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- This may be why she was converted to a minelayer the next year - conjecture. Does anyone say this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- . It is likely that the incident contributed to the relief of the squadron commander - if we are saying things like this, I'd rather we attributed it to a historian. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Italian Junkers Ju 87B - why is the B not part of the link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)
- Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the penultimate Beethoven piano sonata. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Schnabel recordings will need tags for the music itself, and what's the status of the recording in the US?
- Not sure, but since the recording was published in 1932, the copyright does not seem to expire until 2032. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so as far as you're aware these are non-free? If so they would need to be uploaded locally using a non-free rationale, or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so. I'll upload these locally then under fair use. However, these files seem to be okay for use in the EU. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is replaceable fair use so per WP:NFCC#1 the fair use rationale is invalid.
I believe that PD-1996 applies though.(edit: not fully sure anymore) Also see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 14#Beethoven by Artur Schnabel. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC) - I made the changes accordingly. Sorry for the trouble with the non-free files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I possibly made an error. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is replaceable fair use so per WP:NFCC#1 the fair use rationale is invalid.
- Yes, I believe so. I'll upload these locally then under fair use. However, these files seem to be okay for use in the EU. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so as far as you're aware these are non-free? If so they would need to be uploaded locally using a non-free rationale, or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure, but since the recording was published in 1932, the copyright does not seem to expire until 2032. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Sonata_No._31_1st_Movement.png is incorrectly tagged - the uploader does not hold copyright. Ditto File:Sonata_No._31_2st_Movement.png, File:Sonata_No._31_3st_Movement.png
- Fixed license tagging. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Beethoven 110 4 Quarten for wikipedia.mid needs a tag for the music. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what "tag for the music" means in this case, same for above. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The music has a copyright status which is different from the status of the recording - the image description page should include tags reflecting both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a PD-old-100 tag to cover the music itself for all the above files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The music has a copyright status which is different from the status of the recording - the image description page should include tags reflecting both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what "tag for the music" means in this case, same for above. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: With the help of Alexis Jazz, I think we were able to find a PD-US rationale for the sound files. If that's the case, what's the status on the image/media review (which seems kind of messy at this point)? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria: Following Alexis Jazz's explanation that
there might be reason to upload the sound files under fair usethere may have been a mistake, I think we could use some of your input to help resolve this problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you clarify what you're asking me? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion. The discussion here shows how uploading these Schnabel recordings violates WP:NFCC, but we are still unsure of whether PD-US-record applies to the recordings (see Alexis Jazz's explanation in the discussion on HMV). If it turns out PD-US-record doesn't apply (which was Alexis's first thought), then we can still include the Schnabel in the article since the PD-US rationale would be PD-1996. If it does apply, we probably can't use the recordings at all since US copyright hasn't expired yet and because the complete recordings do not qualify for fair use uploading. If you could help us figure out whether the US copyright on these recordings has expired yet, that would be great. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @GeneralPoxter: Looks like you can't use the Schnabel recordings at all. (Clindberg knows this better than I do) Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's a shame, but since a link to the Schnabel recordings is included in the references along with a link to a Gould video, it shouldn't be that bad. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
This is a splendid article, but I have a few quibbles.
- General
- First – and others may disagree with me – I find the use of the preterite for reporting what analysts have written extremely jarring. I mean such constructions as "Denis Matthews described the first movement … Charles Rosen called it…" I can't recall seeing this form in any reputable source, where "So-and-so writes…" or "So-and-so has written…" is the customary usage. I am inclined to oppose promotion to FA until this is addressed, but if other reviewers tell me I'm talking rubbish I'll pipe down.
- For art articles, I have always used the preterite when referring to a reputable source, and this seems to have been fine for FAs The Thankful Poor and Tornado over Kansas. Furthermore, the first examples shown in MOS:QUOTEPOV are in the past tense as well. However, I'm open to more input and a possible re-phrasing. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have some fifty FAs on classical music, and as far as I can recall not one of them uses the preterite when quoting authors. Here are examples from half a dozen of them (not ones I have worked on, let me add): "Macdonald writes that Bizet's legacy is limited" ... "Charles Rosen comments that most of the written-out indications of rubato in Chopin are to be found in his mazurkas" ... "Taruskin writes, 'The older he became, the greater was the irony with which Rimsky-Korsakov looked back'" ... "Boris Asafyev comments that Schumann left his mark on Tchaikovsky" ... "David Matthews writes of passages in Tippett's music" … 'Millington describes Meistersinger as…" – and so on. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I made the changes. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Secondly – see detailed comments below – the article seems at present to be in a mish-mash of English and American, and it really needs to be in one or the other.
- I think the article should be in British English, since that was what it was originally in and what it was tagged as (it's also using dmy format as well). However, as an American, I'm not sure which words should be spelled differently in British English. Is there a tool/source I can consult for this (besides checking each and every word in the dictionary), or can someone with a better background in this take a look? If it proves that the article is now "too American", I guess we can also consider going the other way as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've attended (I think) to the minor changes needed to make the text all BrE. While doing so I noticed four commented-out phrases, one of which has a "citation needed" tag against it. I think these ought to be removed before the article goes forward to FA. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate the help. I removed all of the commented out phrases. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Detailed points
- The sonata … is the subject of musical analyses by Sir Donald Francis Tovey, Denis Matthews, and Charles Rosen – no doubt, but this reads as though no other pundit has analysed the piece, which is not so.
- Rephrased to "including studies by...". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- sent his son Maurice to meet with Beethoven in order to form business relations – two things here: first the "with" is superfluous, and secondly so is "in order".
- Cut. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Beethoven received a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata in January 1822 – I don't follow this: surely Beethoven was receiving the 30 ducats, and would be issuing rather than receiving a receipt for that sum?
- The original letter here says it was a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata, but I rephrased it to read "payment" instead of "receipt" for clarity. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Adolf Schlesinger's letters … confirms – plural noun with singular verb
- Fixed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ferdinand Ries in London, informing Ries that he had sent manuscripts of Opp. 110 and 111 so that Ries – a lot of Rieses – perhaps a "him" for the second one?
- Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Alfred Brendel characterised the main themes – if the article is intended to be in American English, one might expect "characterized" here.
- See above. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Each movement's estimated duration is based on Artur Schnabel's 1932 recording of the sonata. – without for one instant impugning Schnabel's authority, I think it might be better to cite three or so recordings by leading Beethovenians to give a representative summary of typical timings.
- Would adding in Gould and Brendel work here? I hope these two choices wouldn't seem too arbitrary. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
-
- Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- demisemiquaver – I'm struggling here with whether we're in the Queen's English or in American. We seem to have been in the latter so far, but if so, oughtn't demisemiquaver to be "thirty-second note"?
- See above. There seem to be way too many small details that I simply wasn't aware of before that I think the normalizing of the article's English should best be left in a better qualified editor's hands. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sir Donald Tovey compared … – if this refers to Tovey's 1931 book, he wasn't "Sir" yet, and the MoS bids us use the title applicable at the time.
- Removed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- both Matthews and Tovey rationalised – more unexpected BrE in an AmE article.
- attempts to characterise – ditto
- rougher side of his humour – or humor?
- (an Adagio and a finale) – not sure why Adagio needs a capital letter if finale doesn't
- That's the stylizing Martin Cooper uses on page 191. I think the convention here is that for tempo headings of movements (e.g. Allegro or Adagio), the title is capitalized, while for more form-related titles (e.g. scherzo and finale), there is no capitalization. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
-
- I'm unsure of whether this an actual convention though; this is just my best guess given how Cooper stylizes the movement/section titles as well as how the article's original author chose to do it. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Brendel ascribed an unreal, illusory quality – with the greatest imaginable respect for the wonderful Brendel, one does just wonder whether one could have an illusory quality that was real rather than unreal. (This is probably as good a place as any to insert the annoying fact that I have heard both Kempff and Brendel – though not, thank you, Schnabel – play this sonata at the Festival Hall.)
- Actually, these were not Brendel's exact words but a paraphrasing/summary by the original author for the quote "The inverted fugue theme then appears, as unreal as a mirage." I cut out "unreal" from the article text. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- while Tovey went so far as to label – a touch editorial, perhaps?
- Agreed. Cut out "went so far". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- For the complete discography, see Late piano sonatas (Beethoven) – are you sure we'll find the complete discography there?
- Removed "complete". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The sonata has also been recorded by Wilhelm Kempff in 1951, Claudio Arrau in 1965, Alfred Brendel in 1973, Maurizio Pollini in 1975, and Daniel Barenboim in 1984 as part of their respective complete recordings of the Beethoven piano sonatas – perfectly true, but why single out these recordings? What is wanted here, I think, is a sourced pick of the top recommendations for recordings of the work, from a reputable book or magazine.
- Embarrassingly, these were selected from the top results from presto Music that have recording date attributions. I could use some pointers for gathering more sources for recordings/discography. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are my initial thoughts. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks again for comprehensive and insightful review. My main, outstanding concerns are for the American English/British English problem as well as the recording choices. For the former, I don't think I would do a great job myself in fixing this mess, since I have very little knowledge of British English and British music terminology (with respect to how it differs with American English). For the latter, I'm still looking for more sources regarding Op. 110 recordings, but haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive but reliable source listing what they consider to be the most significant and noteworthy recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
B. Max Mehl
This article is about... one of the most prominent coin dealers in history, who built himself up from nothing in a dusty part of Texas, far from the coin collecting centers, and whose ads were familiar to many in magazines having nothing to do with numismatics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
I think this is the first time I've seen an article I started nominated at FAC by someone else; good to see it here! Not much resemblance to the tiny stub I created. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.
- I understand why you use "vended" in the lead, but it sounds unnatural. Could we reconstruct that sentence to describe those collectors as "among his customers" or something like that, and avoid having to use a verb of selling?
- I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Russia in the late 19th century wasn't on the Gregorian calendar. Is Mehl's birthdate in western or Russian dating?
- This is true, but none of the sources differentiates or gives an alternative birth date in Julian. All we have is the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but since the reader might assume one or other dating system, how about a footnote saying that the sources don't specify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is true, but none of the sources differentiates or gives an alternative birth date in Julian. All we have is the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see you're using a referencing system that links "Weiner" in the footnotes to the right line of the source, but since there are two sources by Weiner I'd suggest adding the date to the shortened name in the footnotes -- I typically scroll to the sources rather than click and it was a second before I realized I had the option.
- Weiner's work in the Encyclopedia of Texas is not dated. I'm open to suggestions.
- Perhaps add "adding" before '... "the fires"'?
- "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married. She was the niece of Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen, in whose parlor the wedding occurred." Suggest "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married, in the parlor of Ethel's uncle, Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen."
- "an increase from 10 in 1912" interrupts the sentence it's in now. Since the end of the previous sentence talks about 1912 as well, could this factoid be moved up there? If the sources don't connect it directly to the timing of his return, perhaps "by the end of 1912" would work.
- I've put it in parentheses. I'm really just trying to show that his business prospered after his return, and putting the two figures together does that better.
- I think "1916—1920" should be an en dash but that looks like an em dash. Conversely the subsequent "1916– and 1917-dated" should both be hyphens; the first one looks longer than a hyphen on my screen.
- I think I've fixed that.
- Heath's description of The Star Coin Book is a lot more charitable than Breen's, in the quote box, which calls it "worthless". If Breen is worth quoting on the topic, shouldn't his opinion also be reflected in the body of the article? And I'm not clear why he thinks it's worthless.
- I've just looked at my copy of Breen and according to the subject index, it is the only time he refers to it. Leaving aside his personal failings, Breen had colorful opinions that are often worth quoting, but he was not always coherent in explaining his views. I felt it was worth including to show that not everyone was a big Mehl fan, but I feel that putting a condensed version in the main text would be a bit repetitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The paragraph beginning "According to Tom LaMarre" is about Mehl's image; I think it could do with a topic sentence to start it. Perhaps pull the P.T. Barnum comment up to this para to illustrate an initial topic sentence? Then I think a bit of connective tissue, for flow, is needed between a couple of the other sentences -- e.g. perhaps follow Horning's comment about self-promotion with Guren's comment, connecting them with "... and Guren agreed, saying..." Without something like this it's a bit "A said B".
That's all for a first pass; this is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. Everything above is either fixed or can be left as is, given your comments. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
- Link numismatist.
- It would be helpful if numismatic could be defined in the lead.
- "The applications were subject to no objection being lodged against the prospective member". "member" → 'members'.
- "In October 1903, that journal reported a change of address to Box 24, Alvord, Texas." How is this relevant to the article? (Unless you are talking about Mehl, in which case could you say so?)
- "who sent many rare pieces to Mehl on consignment". What does "on consignment" mean?
- "the more thorough The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia, which by 1924 had an annual circulation of 70,000 copies". "The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia" sounds like a book, but it having a circulation makes it sound like a periodical. Which was it?
- Good question. Avoided by changing "circulation" to "sale".
- "in whose parlor the wedding occurred". Perhaps "occurred" → 'took place'?
- Made moot, I think, by my edit in response to Mike's comments above.
- "and personal matters had obliged him to remain." "had" → 'then'.
- "of which $200 had been spent on a single insertion of an advertisement in The American Boy." I am not sure that this adds much/anything to the article.
- It's an indication of Mehl's willingness to spend increasingly large sums on ads in non-numismatic publications and bridges from the $12.50 spent in Collier's to the large sums detailed later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- $200 out of $5,000 does not seem an "increasingly large sum". How is a reader supposed to know that The American Boy is a non-numismatic publication. The explanation you just gave seems to convey what you wish better. Maybe 'including $200 on a single advertisement in a non-numismatic magazine, demonstrating his willingness to spend increasingly large sums outside the usual trade publications' or something similar?
- It's an indication of Mehl's willingness to spend increasingly large sums on ads in non-numismatic publications and bridges from the $12.50 spent in Collier's to the large sums detailed later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The United States Post Office Department found this to be deceptive". And so ...?
- It doesn't say. It's cited to Bowers' personal recollections of conversations with Mehl in the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is the direct link to " and Mehl switched campaigns" which I feel needs explaining. Why did the US PO finding the ad deceptive cause Mehl to switch campaigns? If this is not known, or is unclear, the two facts would be better given in separate sentences.
- It doesn't say. It's cited to Bowers' personal recollections of conversations with Mehl in the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "$500,000 in resources". In this context, what are "resources"? (Stock?)
- It's not clear. I find an ad from Mehl in The Numismatist, June 1938, p. 536, which is footed, "B. MAX MEHL Mehl Building, Fort Worth, Texas Capital, $250,000. 00. Resources, $500, 000. 00. Largest Numismatic Establishment in the U. S.
- Why is an advertisement[!] in which a businessman trumpets their own financial standing a high quality and/or reliable source?
- I'm not saying that it is, merely using it to confirm what a reliable source (Bowers) says.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- So are you saying that you are unclear as to what "resources" means in this context?
- It appears to be what the business can draw upon if necessary, but that's more or less just going by the dictionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bleh. That's kinda what I assumed, but I struggled to find it in any dictionary. I had hoped it was an Americanism and that you could explain it to me. Hey ho, you have ascribed it directly to Mehl, so I suppose that it is harmless.
- It appears to be what the business can draw upon if necessary, but that's more or less just going by the dictionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- So are you saying that you are unclear as to what "resources" means in this context?
- I'm not saying that it is, merely using it to confirm what a reliable source (Bowers) says.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why is an advertisement[!] in which a businessman trumpets their own financial standing a high quality and/or reliable source?
- It's not clear. I find an ad from Mehl in The Numismatist, June 1938, p. 536, which is footed, "B. MAX MEHL Mehl Building, Fort Worth, Texas Capital, $250,000. 00. Resources, $500, 000. 00. Largest Numismatic Establishment in the U. S.
- "even as stocks sank". Link stocks.
- "to get the Bureau of the Mint to agree to strike low-mintage varieties". What is "low-mintage"?
- " Conducting them by mail bid, Mehl had 116 auction sales between 1903 to 1955". Suggest reversing the order of these clauses.
- Link Rotary Club, Exchange Club, Chamber of Commerce, Country Club, Temple Beth-El. The last possibly as a red link.
- The last is a disambiguation page. I'd rather not do a constructed red link such as Temple Beth-El (Fort Worth, Texas)
- "His last auction took place on October 25, 1955, one of only three to follow the Kern collection in 1950". To my eye this would read better in chronological order.
- OK.
- Is his cause of death known?
- Ref 18: "p." → 'pp.'.
An impressive piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Moise
This looks really interesting. I'm looking forward to reviewing it, will start my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've read through and made a handful of mini-mini-edits, but besides that I saw nothing I felt needed changing. I enjoyed this article very much, great work on it. Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review – pass
All images are well captioned and are on Wikicommons in public domain or otherwise. My only small concern is the source of the Collier's image links to a Google Books page where I at least was not able to see the image. Possibly what displays or is accessible is regional or there could be other factors. If you can think of a better way to describe or link this source, great, or if you're convinced the current way is the best way, I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I am not sure how to improve the Google books link, I clicked it and was very close to the ad, and with the page number supplied it was no problem to find again. I did look for copies of Collier's with higher resolution that contained a Mehl ad and came up empty.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This Side of the Moon
This article is about Elizabeth Cook's third album, This Side of the Moon. The songs were inspired by her experience with the Warner Bros. record label, which released her second album Hey Y'all. Although Hey Y'all was critically acclaimed, it was commercially unsuccessful following record label issues and a lack of airplay on country radio. After voluntarily leaving Warner Bros., Cook recorded the songs which eventually formed This Side of the Moon independently as separate "song experiments". She worked with five producers in eight Tennessee recording studios. The album received positive reviews, but like Hey Y'all, it performed poorly. As a result, it is a rather obscure album. I would honestly be surprised if anyone had heard of it prior to this FAC.
I worked on this article in 2020 following my work on the Hey Y'all article. I felt inspired to at least try a FAC for this article. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I will do my best to further improve the article and address any suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Thissideofthemoon.jpg needs a stronger FUR
- File:Loretta_Lynn_SXSW_2016_-8842_(33197871691).jpg: see WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I was uncertain about the watermark and I have very little expertise or knowledge about Wikipedia's image policy. I greatly appreciate the link as that helps a lot. I have decided to just remove the image as it is not entirely necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- a soft release in August 2004 before Hog Country - is a soft release a lede thing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- release on May 27, 2005 in the US - nowhere else? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The following source (here) only mentions a national release, and since the album was released by a relatively small label, I would believe that the physical CD was only released in the US before it later became available for streaming. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- At the very least, you can totally buy it in this country now... But if we don't have detailed info, I'm sure it can be omitted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is a good point. I was likely just over-thinking it. The album is now even more readily available through streaming and online markets. I was more so worried about somehow misleading the reader, but I do not think this would be the case. I have removed that part from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- departure from Warner Bros. - this could be expanded a tad in the lede Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Any sales info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- "Stupid Things" had "little label support", and - who are saying these quotes? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gordon told Cook that she used songwriting to heal, and she joked it was because she "can't afford therapy beyond a lavender-scented candle" - not sure what we gain out of this sentence Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- "high [and] agile", -> "high" and "agile".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- specifically on "Funny Side of Love", "Here's to You", and "Hard-Hearted".[22 - the next two paras state these names, so no need here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments
- "inspiration for her her follow-up album" - there is is a duplicated word in there :-)
- "Hey Y'all was commercially unsuccessful, was not played on country radio...." - an entire album wouldn't get played on the radio anyway, so maybe this needs to be something like "its songs were not played on country radio". This applies in a couple of places in the body too.
- "In a 2005 Country Standard Time article, Rick Bell attribute this to" => attributed
- "Jeff Gordon is the executive producer" => was
- "with whom she worked with because they were signed...." - stray word in there
- Fats Kaplin has an article so can be wikilinked, as does Tammy Rogers
- That's what I got - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review and your kind words. I believe that I have addressed all the above points, but let me know if anything else needs further revision. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Frozen II
- Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Improved to Good Article by Pamzeis, Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers
- Significant copyeditor: Tenryuu
- From previous archive: @Nikkimaria:, and @Aoba47:
The highest-grossing animated film of all time, the sequel to Frozen (2013), the proposal is well written, clear, and engaging, having been recently copyedited and corrected by a GOCE member; its coverage is broad and are notable; it is backed by archived reliable sources; it has a neutral point of view; it's not subject to an edit war; all images used on the article are from Wikimedia Commons or placed under a claim of fair-use with appropriate rationale. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Come on, some supports or opposes? responses? anyone? Wingwatchers (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It sometimes takes a while for reviewers to look at an article. Continuing reviewing other FACs; this demonstrates to other reviewers that you understand the FA criteria, giving them confidence that your article is ready. It can take up to two months for a FAC to get the 5+ reviews that it needs for promotion, so get ready for a long but fun ride! Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- "The Germanic water spirits Nøkk, as painted by Theodor Kittelsen, was notably heavier" - source, and notably heavier than what?
- File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg: why is the use of this particular image justified?
- File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- File:Magic_Kingdom_castle.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: the publication date was 1904 in Norway [1].
- Publication or creation? In what form was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would I know, but I can tell you that the author died in 1914, so it's in public domain. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- It has a tag stating it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926. If we don't know that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then to clarify the matter, I switched the image File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg to a more descriptive equivalent from Flickr, File:Nøkken (12924042635).jpg. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It has a tag stating it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926. If we don't know that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Magic Kingdom castle.jpg, transcluded in a portal template, the image's licenses are GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2, and CC BY-SA 3.0.
- I know that. I'm asking about the licensing of the work being pictured, not the image itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Wingwatchers (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The castle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still don't get it, the castle is a three-dimensional building, why would it be copyrighted? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, got it. The Magic Castle was in public domain because it was constructed in 1971, therefore it was not protected by copyright. See Copyright in architecture in the United States. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still don't get it, the castle is a three-dimensional building, why would it be copyrighted? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The castle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg and File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg's descriptions. @Nikkimaria Wingwatchers (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Portions of the former are not supported by the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added a citaion if that was what you are referring to. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Portions of the former are not supported by the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
Prose review. I have seen the film, and know some information about it, but other areas (such as animation jargon and how the film industry works) will be a little outside my scope of knowledge.
- "Frozen II was green-lit" Green-lit is MOS:JARGON for the film industry, suggest "Production for Frozen II was approved..."
- "after an internal debate over" An internal debate where? Among which people?
- "if it would be a let-down to the original." Maybe -> "if it would be a disappointment to audiences compared to the original."
- "from several other animation departments due to its complication." Delete several as redundant.
- " She also learns Runeard was the one who started the conflict" -> "She also learns that Runeard started the conflict"
- "Wood was cast since her voice sounds similar to Menzel and Bell's voices." This should be placed in the part of the article that talks about how the producers chose the voice actresses/actors.
- "Voice recording began in September 2017,[11][12] though Menzel started a couple weeks later due to her concert tour.[13]" This should be placed in the development section
- "The Voice's 4-note call is derived from the Latin sequence Dies irae, but is delivered in a manner inspired by the Scandinavian music form kulning.[10]" This pertains to the development, so should be placed in that section.
- "He was previously voiced by Maurice LaMarche in the first film." Again, this switch should be described in a casting or development section, not here.
- "Paul Briggs also briefly reprised his role in the film's post-credits scene as Marshmallow," -> "Paul Briggs reprised his role..."
- Looking ahead in the article, it looks like there isn't a "Casting" section. I suggest adding this as a level-three heading in "Development" to describe the actresses/actors that returned to do voice work, as well as the casting process for the voices not featured in the first film. Some of the information outlined above would go in this section.
- "said that a sequel was not potentially considered because" delete potentially
- "Lee confirmed that Walt Disney Studios then-chief creative officer John Lasseter" delete then. The reader know that we are speaking of the chief creative officer of 2014 and that this role will change.
- "The pair decided to collaborate on a film entirely unrelated to Frozen." What film was this?
- "While working on the short film Frozen Fever, they realized how much they missed the characters." It's weird how the previous sentence says they worked on a project unrelated to Frozen, then describes a short-film they were making that was in the Frozen universe. Why did they create this short film?
- "Meanwhile, Del Vecho had been accepting speech engagements around the world, where fans asked him unanswered questions regarding Frozen's future." Delete unanswered.
- Delete the LA Times editor's blockquote. It is not adding to the article, and there's already a blockquote talking about this from Lasseter
- The Development section is long; I think the text about Disney pre-announcement of Frozen II's development should be in its own section
- "From the Scandinavia research trip, the production team concluded that Elsa is a "mythic hero" who possesses magical ice powers, while Anna is a "fairytale hero" who lives in a world with magic but does not have magical powers herself,[26] and that the first film succeeded by how it combined these two sets of elements." This is a long sentence, put the information after the [26] footnote into its own sentence.
- "New York City to Burbank with camera crews in tow and ended up shooting 1,300 hours of footage on 115 shooting days from December 2018 through the November 2019 world premiere." -> "New York City to Burbank with and shot 1,300 hours of footage over 115 days from December 2018 to the November 2019 world premiere." To reduce redundancy
- " and the moment and reason ended up in her documentary." Did the film crew have to leave the room so the production crew could resolve who the voice was?
- "The film was produced by a team of approximately 800 people, 80 of whom were animators." What about the rest of the 720 people?
- "while Wayne Unten again served as animation supervisor for Elsa." -> "while Wayne Unten reprised his role from the first film as animation supervisor for Elsa."
- "and also drew inspiration from modern dance," delete also, redundant.
- "from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty," delete several
- "The visual mythical adoption required additional collaborations from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty, as estimated by visual supervisor Steve Golberg, the process took at least 8 months to complete." Recommend changing the comma after difficulty to a semi-colon
- "than the ocean as depicted in Moana." Delete as
- "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut and left out of the finished film." -> "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut from the finished film."
- "For example, approximately a dozen animators and artists had labored for two months on a far more elaborate resurrection scene for Olaf before it was cut." The blockquote after this sentence talks about Show Yourself, but doesn't mention Olaf's resurrection scene. I'm confused about why this blockquote is here and what it is trying to tell me.
- " production team locked the picture" locked the picture is unnecessary jargon, and most people will have to click on the wikilink to understand what this means. Why not simplify to "complete the film"?
- "The musical team used a self-encouragement strategy, by pumping themselves that things would eventually be clearer in the near future." I don't think this sentence is necessary
- "and they ended up doing most of the work off-camera." -> "and they completed most of the work off-camera."
This brings me to Marketing; I will continue my review once the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
More comments.
- "In the U.S. market, Disney heavily marketed the film through a variety of internal and external partners." This statement feels very generalised and I am not sure how it is contributing to the article. Either give some examples of partnerships, or delete.
- "To support the film's marketing campaign, the lead cast members made numerous public and televised appearances." Again, this is a very generalised statement; where did they make these appearances?
- Per WP:OVERSECTION, single sentences and paragraphs don't usually get their own section. Consider merging the theatrical and international release sections.
- "The Blu-ray bonus features include a sing-along audio recording of the film..." This sentence is very long. Consider splitting.
- "In the United States and Canada, the film was released alongside A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges." This might belong in the release section
- I think the themes section should be a level 2 heading and placed after the critical reception.
- I'm concerned that the themes section is mostly quoted from the sources. Is there a way to minimize the quotes? Any additional commentary about the themes of the film?
- "Kristen Page-Kirby of The Washington Post rated the film 2 out of 4 stars, she panned the film's" replace this comma with a semi-colon
- "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic, he also deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."" -> "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic and deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."
- Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used in the article?
- There are lots of things in External links. Per WP:ELNO should they all be there? Die Hard is a recently promoted FA and might provide guidance on what links to include.
Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully done. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Why is pre-production before development? Doesn't development come first...? Pamzeis (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't it? The sequel was not officially approved until March 2015. So that means it was not in development until that date. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't pre-production either. It can't have been as pre-production is generally planning (of production (animation/voice recording in this case)) and starts after the film has been greenlit. On the other hand, development is mostly the conception, creation and writing. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- And BTW, I don't think a film has to be greenlit to be in development, though it has to be for pre-production. Pamzeis (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- What about pre-development? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- No idea a word to describe the context, any ideas? @Pamzeis Wingwatchers (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- What about pre-development? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Ceres (dwarf planet)
This article is about the largest asteroid between Mars and Jupiter. Serendipodous 14:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Procedural note -- Hi Serendi, I see a Peer Review is open for this article and we don't allow FACs and PRs to run simultaneously; if you want this FAC to remain open pls close the PR now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Jens
- Great to see an astronomy article again, I was missing that. I try to throw some comments in soon. In the mean time, please make sure that everything is sourced (there should be inline citation behind every paragraph in the main text; this is not always the case). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying we should cite the lead? The only other uncited paragraph is the single line introducing the three and two layer models; I tried to fix that by making the full stop into a colon, but that got marked in a PR. Serendipodous 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, not the lead, I am referring to the body. It looks like most of the sentences without citations are merely explanations/rewordings of stuff mentioned earlier (still, I think the respective citation should appear at the end of the paragraph to cover those sentences as well). And I think that, apart from the layer models, this one also needs a citation in any case: Bodies that met the first proposed definition but not the second, such as Ceres, were instead classified as dwarf planets. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The first asteroid discovered – I think this needs to be better explained since you previously state it is a dwarf planet.
- The old astronomical symbol of Ceres is a sickle, ⟨⚳⟩ – maybe make the connection to the goddess of agriculture?
- The lead is a bit short and leaves many open questions. What does the name mean? And then: "It was originally considered a planet, but was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s after over 20 other objects in similar orbits were discovered. – so why it is a dwarf planet now? I think the lead needs to be improved to properly summarise the article.
- less-dense – should it be "less dense"?
- 30 percent ice – be consistent, either use "percent" or % (I would opt for the latter). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Resolved I think. Serendipodous 10:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I recommend to reply to each individual reviewer or coordinator queries (a brief "done" is sufficient). This way, one can easily see that points have been addressed, and this may give you more reviews more quickly.
Will do.
- Theoretical astronomer Johannes Kepler had already noticed the gap between Mars and Jupiter in 1596 – This sentence doesn't make sense at this position in the text, because the reader can't know which gap it is talking about (there is obviously a gab between all planets). The principle should first be explained; maybe switch this sentence with the next?
Good pont.
- Monatliche Correspondenz – Maybe explain what this is and why it is significant? (as you don't give the journals elsewhere).
Done.
- pronunciation),[32] In keeping – either needs a dot or "In" needs to be lower case.
done
- Ceres was once thought to be a member of an asteroid family. – Here I think we already want to know which asteroid family.
done
- Ceres is in a near-1:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Pallas – I fear this is not accessible enough for the general public. Maybe an explanation could be added? Maybe start the paragraph with a sentence explaining what a resonance is.
done.
- cold traps – I think you need to link to Cold trap (astronomy), not to the technical device. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
done. Serendipodous 23:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It has been classified both as a C-type asteroid – I think you should state what C-type asteroids are. done
- In July 2018, NASA released a comparison of physical features found on Ceres with similar ones present on Earth.[60] – Yeah, but what were the results? What are the implications? This sentence, as it currently is, is solely historical, in the section about geology.done
- Ceres is the smallest object likely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium – is this consensus? There seem to be at least some researchers arguing that Enceladus is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is much smaller?
- Not according the the Enceladus article. This is a battle I don't intend to fight. If you want to go into the finer details, I am sure User:Kwamikagami can fill you in. This is his obsession. Serendipodous 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Last I heard, Enceladus had an HE shape for a different rotational period, indicating that it's frozen out of HE. But there've been a lot of measurements of Enceladus since then, so that conclusion might be dated. A lot of refs use circular reasoning with these kinds of statements, though, so we need to be a bit careful. Better IMO to rely on sources dedicated to the question, rather than passing comments in articles reporting on something else. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just think that, if you are not sure that this is consensus (the Enceladus article seems to indicate that Porco et al. (2006) considered this possibility), than you need to formulate the sentence more carefully. Because at the moment, it implies that this is the consensus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Last I heard, Enceladus had an HE shape for a different rotational period, indicating that it's frozen out of HE. But there've been a lot of measurements of Enceladus since then, so that conclusion might be dated. A lot of refs use circular reasoning with these kinds of statements, though, so we need to be a bit careful. Better IMO to rely on sources dedicated to the question, rather than passing comments in articles reporting on something else. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The surface of Ceres is "remarkably" homogeneous on a global scale – why "remarkably" in quotation marks? done
- Another large-scale variation is found in three large shallow basins (planitia) with degraded rims; these may be eroded craters, and two of the three have higher than average ammonium concentrations – I can't follow here, why is the anomaly restricted to three basins? done
- The water ocean that is thought to have existed early in Ceres's history – This water ocean was not mentioned before, but "The" somehow indicates it was. Can it be properly introduced? done
- Studies by the Hubble Space Telescope – it must be humans doing the study, not the telescope. Reword? done
- a dark spot on its surface, which was nicknamed "Piazzi" – the spot seems to be white on the provided image; explain in the image caption why this is? done
- and thus composed more of rock than ice – "comprised"?
- Ugh. No. "Composed of" not "comprised of". Serendipodous 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't saw the "of". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- A later computer simulation has suggested – later than what? done
- Section "craters" has mainly history, but very little current knowledge. Maybe at least list the largest craters and interesting bits that might come with them? done
- spots to the east - Vinalia Faculae. – can we make a proper sentence out of this, the dash seems to be misused? done
- the secondary bright spot – what secondary bright spot, and what does that mean? Was not mentioned earlier, should be clearer. done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe include a "see also" or "main article" tag to the article Bright spots on Ceres in the section cyrovolcanism? Otherwise it is difficult to find this article.
- Link the different craters to their article.
- 11 recognizable surface features, the natures of which were then undetermined.[11][69] One of these features corresponds to the "Piazzi" feature observed earlier. – I still don't understand what the Piazzi feature actually is. Dawn must have settled this dispute?
- irradiation – should be linked or explained
- most of the planet's surface is extremely rich in carbon, with approximately 20% carbon by mass in its near surface – "Its" already refers to the surface, so this needs reformulation I think. Maybe combine both statements?
- Can anything be said about the origin of the boulders? How do they form?
- The active geology of Ceres is driven by ice and brines, with an overall salinity of around 5%. – The overal salinity of what? Of Ceres, the ice, or the brines?
- The fact that the surface has preserved craters smaller than 300 km (190 mi) in diameter indicate that the outermost layer of Ceres is on the order of 1000 times stronger than water ice. – Not sure if I understand correctly: The presence of small craters mean that the outermost layer was strong? And if there would be a larger crater it would indicate it was weak? This does not make immediate sense to me, maybe explain better.
- As of 2021, two competing models for Ceres's interior, a 2-layer and a 3-layer model, not counting a possible small metallic core, are proposed. – Needs source (a general overview from 2021 would be best). If you can't source the 2021, I would remove that year, because the reader assumes that a source from that year was used.
- mantle – link at first mention, not in the middle of the article
- rock (mud) – but mud is not rock. That would be mudstone.
- kilometre – be consistent throughout the article with abbreviating units (usually you use km) and spelling (kilometre is British English, but elsewhere you tend to use American English).
- one of the Classical symbols of the goddess Ceres – why is "Classical" capitalised?
- It is unknown if it contains a rocky or metallic core, – recommend to replace "it" with Ceres for clarity, as "it" could also refer to the mantle.
- link porosity
- densities of the core and mantle/crust to be 2.46–2.90 and 1.68–1.95 g/cm3 – respectively?
- It is unknown if it contains a rocky or metallic core, – does it mean the mantle is the core, or is this about a fourth "layer" within the mantle?
- It is not possible to tell if Ceres' deep interior contains liquid or a core of dense material rich in metal – a very similar sentence about the core (metallic vs rock) was already given. Combine the two maybe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text done.
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periodsdone.
- File:Ceres_-_RC3_-_Haulani_Crater_(22381131691)_(cropped).jpg: what aspect of this image is CC-licensed? all of them.
- Then what is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- See the comment at the bottom. Serendipodous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- What we need to clarify is what aspect of the work is PD versus what is CC. For example, did the uploader edit the originally PD source? What was changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- All he did was trim the black from the edges. And what does it matter? PD or CC it still qualifies. Serendipodous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Either would qualify; if we're using both, we need to be clear on how they interact. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- All he did was trim the black from the edges. And what does it matter? PD or CC it still qualifies. Serendipodous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- What we need to clarify is what aspect of the work is PD versus what is CC. For example, did the uploader edit the originally PD source? What was changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Giuseppe_Piazzi.jpg: when and where was this first published? 1808, in Italy presumably.
- In what form was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean published? It's a painting. If you are referring to the uploader, then see here Serendipodous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the painting - simply being painted doesn't make the work published. See definition here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Did you see the link I provided? The image was taken from that site. Serendipodous 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did. It does not answer my question about whether the image is correctly tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is now. Serendipodous 16:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not. The work may be hosted on the SI website, but it's not originally an SI work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The work is from 1808! It's public domain! Serendipodous 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then we should be able to find an appropriate tag for it. What is the earliest publication of the image that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would that solve anything? Finding the oldest date for online publication won't determine whether it predates 1923. Serendipodous 01:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the portrait's entry in the Smithsonian Library. It clearly says the portrait is out of copyright. Now can we please put this insanity to rest? Serendipodous 01:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then we should be able to find an appropriate tag for it. What is the earliest publication of the image that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The work is from 1808! It's public domain! Serendipodous 01:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not. The work may be hosted on the SI website, but it's not originally an SI work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is now. Serendipodous 16:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did. It does not answer my question about whether the image is correctly tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Did you see the link I provided? The image was taken from that site. Serendipodous 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the painting - simply being painted doesn't make the work published. See definition here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Ceres_Orbit_c.svg: there are two shades of blue here - which is being referred to as "blue" in the caption? Also (and for File:Animation_of_Dawn_trajectory_around_Ceres.gif as well), see MOS:COLOUR done.
- What has been done? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I added the meaning of the lighter colors in the descriptions. As for the Dawn trajectory, I have no idea what you want. Serendipodous 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Using only colour to convey meaning presents an accessibility issue - can the accessibility of these images be improved? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, and it doesn't matter. There are only two things in the animation, ergo the image would work just as well in black and white. Serendipodous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The former includes more than two colours. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, and it doesn't matter. There are only two things in the animation, ergo the image would work just as well in black and white. Serendipodous 01:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Using only colour to convey meaning presents an accessibility issue - can the accessibility of these images be improved? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Several of the images with a tag based on being "solely created by NASA" credit other entities in addition to NASA. Are they the intellectual property of NASA, or of other entities? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
NASA material is not protected by copyright. The whole "for all mankind" thing.
To clarify: as per JPL: "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below."
The Dawn mission, from which every single close up image of Ceres has been taken, was a JPL mission, ergo every image taken by Dawn falls under that proviso.
Serendipodous 16:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final
My article at 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final recently became featured, so I'm now moving on to the 2015 edition of the same competition. The Africa Cup of Nations is the continent's premier tournament for national teams, equivalent to the UEFA European Championship in Europe, and second only to the FIFA World Cup in terms of prestige for African teams. The 2015 final featured Ghana and the Ivory Coast, 4-time- and 1-time-winners respectively. The game was unfortunately not the most exciting ever, finishing 0–0 with few chances for either side. The championship was therefore settled by a penalty shoot-out, which Ivory Coast won 9–8 after Ghana's goalkeeper missed a kick against his opposite number, and he Ivorian goalkeeper then scored. Note that I have another FAC currently open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2008 Final/archive1, in which I'm a co-nominator, (and more feedback on that one is certainly welcomed!) while this one's a solo nomination. — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing is OK, but I don't see where the information in File:CIV-GHA-2015-02-08.png is cited either in the image description or the article (it should be easily verifiable in both places). (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I have sourced the information to the BBC Sport page, and put a citation both in the file and in the article (ref [33] against the two team names). There were some slight discrepancies between the BBC's version of the formation and the one in the file, so I've updated the file to match. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Edwininlondon
Nice to see you building up a collection of FAs for African football. With the caveats that I am neither an expert in African football nor a native speaker of English, here are my comments:
- Check the article for MOS:NUM issues. In 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final we have "The tournament consisted of sixteen teams who had qualified for the event, divided into four round-robin groups consisting of four teams" but here we have "The tournament consisted of 16 teams, who were divided into 4 groups of 4, each team playing the other 3 group members once in a round-robin format."
- I think the same problem was in 2017 re that paragraph, so I've amended to match that. Also a couple of 10 -> ten re penalties and players. Other than that, I can't see any obvious inconsistencies. Times of the match are all digits, while most other bits and bobs are lower numbers written as words. — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I too think the times of the match have to be in digits.
- link sudden death perhaps?
- Ghana also appeared --> repetition of the word also
- Ghana were placed in Group C --> this suggests a deliberate act. Was it? Usually it is a random draw
- after 14 minutes through a André Ayew penalty, after --> repetition of after
- The match remained goal-less until injury time at the end in the second half, and Ghana appeared poised to exit the tournament. --> this confused me: it makes me believe Algeria scored
- Right. It was based on the BBC article's phrasing "dramatic late winner to keep alive his side's hopes of reaching the Africa Cup of Nations quarter-finals", but in reality I don't think Ghana would have been completely eliminated even if they'd not won. So I've removed that aspect and just left the fact that they scored a last minute winner. — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- drive --> needs either a better description or a link
- I guess it means a straight shot, but the Glossary of association football terms doesn't even cover it. So just changed to "shot". — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- being in the ascendency --> this is a bit too cryptic for me
- midway through the second half sealed --> that is the 3rd "seal" in short succession.
- Summary --> in 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final this section was called Match. Why is this idfferent?
- a studs-first high foul --> I don't think you need that "high", and studs should probably be linked
- with a run and shot from 25 yards (23 m) by Mubarak, but his shot was blocked by Tiene --> not the most elegant sentence. A rewrite would be nice
- having taken a kick, the two goalkeepers were required to take a kick --> having had a turn, the two goalkeepers were required to take a kick
- There is an empty External links section
- Technically it's not empty, as there's a {{Commons category}} template in there. It's over on the right though, so maybe looks odd. Happy to take any advice on this. — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final has a See also section. Add one here too?
- Yeah OK. 2017 Africa Cup of Nations knockout stage is vaguely useful as a "parent" to this article I suppose. — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
That's all from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: all points addressed I think. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- All looks good to me, a comprehensive account of the match. I Support on prose. If you have some spare time, perhaps you might fancy taking a look at my FAC nomination, also a football article: Manon Melis. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
- "Then Ghana's Christian Atsu had what writers" Delete then, as it is assumed that this happened afterwards and is redundant.
- I think the third paragraph in the lede needs to be expanded, with more information about the aftermath of this match.
- "It was originally scheduled to take place in Morocco, but the Confederation of African Football (CAF) made the decision to move it to Equatorial Guinea in 2014. Morocco had requested a postponement as a result of the ongoing Western African Ebola virus epidemic, but CAF refused and instead decided to remove Morocco's rights to host the event" -> Morocco was originally chosen to host the event, but the country requested a postponement of the event because of the Western African Ebola virus epidemic. CAF refused, and instead moved the event to Equatorial Guinea in 2014." This tightens up the language a little bit.
- "their sole victory coming in 1992 when they defeated Ghana on sudden death in a penalty shootout at the end of a goalless draw at the Stade de l'Amitié in Dakar, Senegal." The text after draw can be deleted, as we already know what year this event took place in and the location of the 1992 event is not important for this article.
- "In their second game, Ghana faced Algeria, on 23 January in Mongomo." Delete the second comma
- "The match remained goal-less" In the section before, it is spelt goalless. Which is correct for your style of English?
- "when Ghana who took the lead, Asamoah Gyan scoring from a long pass by Mubarak Wakaso." -> "when Ghana took the lead after Asamoah Gyan scored from a long pass by Mubarak Wakaso."
- "an Ayew winner gave them a 2–1 win and first place in the group." -> an Ayew goal?
- "but Ivory Coast nonetheless earned a draw with a Seydou Doumbia equaliser on 72 minutes." delete nevertheless as redundant.
- "and a goal by Wilfried Kanon midway through the second half complete their second consecutive 3–1 win and a place in the final." Change to "completed their"
- "The first chance of the game fell to Yaya Touré on 12 minutes, with a free kick, but despite him clearing the wall, his shot went straight to Ghanaian goalkeeper Brimah Razak, who caught it." -> "Yaya Touré had the first chance to score in the game on 12 minutes; he cleared the wall on a free kick but his shot went straight to Ghanaian goalkeeper Brimah Razak, who caught it." This removed "fell to", which is an idiom since the ball did not literally fall to Toure, and it removes some of the commas.
- "Ghana were attempting to find Atsu with a series of long passes," What does it mean to find someone? Please reword.
- "Ivory Coast launched an attack down the right on 33 minutes, through Bailly and Gradel, the latter attempting to find Gervinho in the penalty area, but despite a defensive error from Boye, Razak was able to collect the ball." -> "Ivory Coast launched an attack down the right on 33 minutes, through Bailly and Gradel, with the latter attempting to find Gervinho in the penalty area. Despite a defensive error from Boye, Razak was able to collect the ball." This separates the sentences and reduces commas.
- Earlier in the article, it stated the country's FIFA scores before the tournament. Did the teams advance or decline in the standings as a result of this tournament?
Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
UEFA Euro 2008 Final
- Nominator(s): — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man
This article is about the final of Euro 2008, that year's edition of Europe's premier association football (soccer) competition for national teams. The finalists were Germany and Spain, with the latter winning 1–0 to record the first of three consecutive major competition wins, including wins in the 2010 FIFA World Cup Final and the UEFA Euro 2012 Final. I am working on this article jointly with User:The Rambling Man, and this is thus a co-nomination. Looking forward to any reviews, and we will endeavour to respond to all points made in a prompt fashion. — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing is satisfactory. The only issue I see is using a table to enclose a single image in statistics section, which forces a specific pixel width: should not be done "Except with very good reason" according to MOS. (t · c) buidhe 11:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment My first impression on reading through is that as a description of events that evening the article does a good job. However, the article could do more in terms of putting the match in a wider context. Prior to this match Spain were perennial underachievers who hadn't won a tournament in 44 years. What were the expectations going into the match? My memory is that they were tournament favourites, were they? How many fans travelled from the respective countries? What was the mood in each country? The tournament was the first triumph of the "tiki-taka" style that would dominate at both international and club level for the next few years. The term "tiki-taka" doesn't appear once. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Ernst-Happel-Stadion, Vienna, on 29 June 2008, - could we say Austria? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- But it was Spain who took the lead - feels a bit editorialy to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Andrés Iniesta and Dani Güiza had good chances to double Spain's lead, while Michael Ballack's attempted equaliser went narrowly wide, but the game finished with no further goals - a few grammar issues here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- I feel like mentioning the defending champion in the background is pertinent Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- link Luis Aragonés on first use in body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "in 1995" - pipes to a different article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Currently I have an FAC running (but near to completion, by the look of things) about a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them coming within 10 minutes of getting promoted to a higher division. Now I present for you a season which started with Gillingham F.C. in financial difficulties and ended with them actually getting promoted to a higher division. If you wanted to see lots of goals being scored, this was definitely not the season to be a Gillingham fan, but hey - promotion is promotion :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- being in administrative receivership - could we use a better phrase, or explain this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- almost the entire season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Third division is linked twice in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- lowest division of the Football League - worth stating what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- the most games for Gillingham, being absent for only of the team's 54 matches; - something is missing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Link clean sheet Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- A record for whom? The team, the league, the nation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- Pulis significantly rebuilt the team, signing eight new players ahead of the new season. Three new signings were announced at the same time as Scally's takeover was completed - the timing is off here. Scally brough in Pulis, who brought in these players... But the players were announced as signings the same time Scally was appointed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The finalisation of the takeover, the appointment of Pulis, and the first three signings were genuinely all announced at the same press conference - it's on the season review DVD which I have, and if you search "1995-96 Gillingham season preview" on YouTube you should be able to watch it (don't want to link to an obvious copyvio here). I can only presume that Scally was already in talks with Pulis, and had him looking at players, before the takeover was 100% nailed down..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is it really "non-League"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Because it was originally "football that isn't part of the Football League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- and returned for a second spell; - superfluous Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- provided a funding boost for a club still on shaky financial ground - seems a bit editorialised to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Caption:suffered a serious injury in November - should really comment what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- with maximum points - seems implied from four wins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- team held another promotion-chasing team - this is the first time we've mentioned that they were challenging for promotion,I thought they were just trying to stay afloat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well the fact that they were in second place put them in the promotion chase by definition, I would say. Any suggestions for a re-word? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- so far is present tense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's a couple jargon terms that need a link on first use, such as "sent off" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Linked sent off. What else do I need to pick up? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- both clubs were later disciplined by the football authorities for failing to control their players - how? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- fellow Third Division championship challengers Chester City - we've already established Chester at this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The season was notable for the team's strong defence but also low goalscoring - grammar feels a little off here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cardiff drew with Hereford and then beat Gillingham 3–2 - feels weird to me that we are talking about from Cardiff POV and not Gillingham. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- both records for a 46-match League season - once again, for whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - many thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - just checking if you had any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support by WA8MTWAYC
- "Gillingham F.C. competed in the Football League Third Division" ==> maybe indicate that the Third Div was actually the fourth tier back then.
- "It was the 64th season in which the club competed in the Football League, and the 46th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950." ==> the club ... the club is repetitive
- "three positions in the Football League Third Division" ==> I don't think "Football League" is needed here
- "Having signed ... league system." ==> this is quite long and should probably be split.
- "drawing 20" and "only managed two draws and" ==> link draw
- "being absent for only of the team's 54 matches" ==> "one" is missing between only and of.
- "He appointed former Gillingham player Tony Pulis as the club's new manager" ==> who did Pulis succeed at Gillingham?
- Technically nobody. The club hadn't had a permanent manager since February; Neil Smillie had been caretaker manager while the club was in administration, but he was let go as soon as the preceding season ended, so nobody at all was in post prior to the takeover. I changed it to say that Scally appointed Pulis to the vacant post of manager. Do you think any more than that needs to be said? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- "and shortly before the first match of the season Mark Harris and Dominic Naylor arrived from Swansea City and Plymouth Argyle respectively" ==> maybe put a comma between season and Mark and Argyle and respectively.
- "league table; It was" ==> it was
- The table under FL Cup shows Gillingham were eliminated in the first round, but the infobox states it was in the second.
- In the table under FL Trophy, "Hereford United (A)" ==> Hereford United (H)
- According to Alan Nicholls's wiki page, he died on 25 Nov instead of the 23rd.
- That's what I have. The article looks great. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WA8MTWAYC: - all done bar one question -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Support by Aoba47
- For the caption for this image (File:Leo Fortune-West 3.png), I would include the year that the photo was taken as you have done with the other images in the article.
- For this part,
Gillingham also reached the third round of the FA Cup
, I do not believe "also" is necessary here as it seems more like a filler word. The other two instances of "also" in the article seem appropriate to me.
These are the only things that I have noticed, which makes sense as this FAC has already received two reviews. Once my two very nitpick-y comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I am not familiar with association football, or sports in general, but I understood everything in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: -- done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- FN5 is missing author
- Ref 5 is a citation to the Elligate book, I am guessing that isn't the one you meant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, FN6. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, FN6. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 5 is a citation to the Elligate book, I am guessing that isn't the one you meant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- What makes Soccerdata a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: they are the UK's leading publisher of football reference books with a catalogue of hundreds of publications. They have published volumes in the "Definitive" series for something like 30 different clubs. The Gillingham volume has been used as a main source in three recently-promoted FAs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference re: "leading publisher"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Not specifically, but they have been publishing specialist football reference books for over 25 years and you will find their publications in all major bookstores. They have published books by authors including Jack Rollin, who edited the Rothman's Football Yearbook for about 30 years, and the author of the Gillingham volume, Tony Brown, is or was a member of the Association of Football Statisticians, a data partner of the Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Not specifically, but they have been publishing specialist football reference books for over 25 years and you will find their publications in all major bookstores. They have published books by authors including Jack Rollin, who edited the Rothman's Football Yearbook for about 30 years, and the author of the Gillingham volume, Tony Brown, is or was a member of the Association of Football Statisticians, a data partner of the Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference re: "leading publisher"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: they are the UK's leading publisher of football reference books with a catalogue of hundreds of publications. They have published volumes in the "Definitive" series for something like 30 different clubs. The Gillingham volume has been used as a main source in three recently-promoted FAs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
2019 West Coast Eagles season
This article is about the 2019 season of the West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football club. This is my first Featured Article nomination, and the first nomination of an Australian rules football club season. I created this article earlier this year in April, and have had it pass a Good Article review. Steelkamp (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Removed all fixed px size except for images using Template:Multiple image, because it does not support using scale factors, and by default it is too wide. Steelkamp (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)
Another Missouri cavalry unit. This one fought in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas in 1863 and 1864, with its most significant action occurring at Pine Bluff (Arkansas, 1863), Fort Davidson (Missouri, 1864), Little Blue River (Missouri, 1864), and Mine Creek (Kansas, 1864). It was originally drawn from Sterling Price's headquarters guard and was armed with experimental rapid-fire cannons, although little seems to be known about that. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the raid map slightly, providing a legend, and including a source to verify the map's contents on the image description page
- @Nikkimaria: - I have increased the raid map scaling from 1.2 to 1.4. I don't know how to create a legend, where should I look? The map was created by a professional cartographer who specializes in the American Civil War who also happens to be a Wikipedian. I don't know what source(s) Hal J. used for this. The Sinisi source includes a pretty detailed route description that should cover the map details, but I don't know for a fact that that was the source used. I've adjusted the alt text for the Byram's Ford image so it doesn't duplicate the caption, but I have no idea what to use for alt text for the map that isn't super similar to the caption. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{image key}} or a related template may work well for a legend. The Sinisi source is fine even if it wasn't the original source, as long as it matches up with what is presented. As far as the alt... it's tricky for such a complex map, but WP:ALT suggests focusing on summarizing what is being presented, and/or referring to adjacent text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've changed the alt text to state that's a map of Confederate movements, and to see the accompanying text for description. For the legend, since it's not standard symbols, I've added a prose description of what the things mean to the image caption. I have added Sinisi as a source to the file description page. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{image key}} or a related template may work well for a legend. The Sinisi source is fine even if it wasn't the original source, as long as it matches up with what is presented. As far as the alt... it's tricky for such a complex map, but WP:ALT suggests focusing on summarizing what is being presented, and/or referring to adjacent text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - I have increased the raid map scaling from 1.2 to 1.4. I don't know how to create a legend, where should I look? The map was created by a professional cartographer who specializes in the American Civil War who also happens to be a Wikipedian. I don't know what source(s) Hal J. used for this. The Sinisi source includes a pretty detailed route description that should cover the map details, but I don't know for a fact that that was the source used. I've adjusted the alt text for the Byram's Ford image so it doesn't duplicate the caption, but I have no idea what to use for alt text for the map that isn't super similar to the caption. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Alt text should not duplicate captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
- I was a little surprised to read a biography of a cavalry unit and find nothing on the horses. Eg, what type, how many, remounts, where did they come from, how were they cared for. How did the unit fight; ie were they essentially mounted infantry? Horse holders? How many?
- I've added a good bit about horse procurement, and some basics about fighting. Like with the one below, I can really only speak in general terms for this.
- This is a military unit, what weapons did they use? There is one mention of a mounted attack, how did that work? Swords? You twice mention Union weapons and the cannon which the unit never used, but for all a reader can tell the unit being described was equipped with breastplates and matchlocks.
- I don't have a source that directly states what this unit had besides the experimental cannons, but thankfully I recently purchased an older book about Confederate cavalry in this part of the war that goes into detail about how they were armed. I've added a bit, although I have to be pretty general. Lots of shotguns, single-shot muskets, six-shooters, and large knives. So stuff that's a pain to while riding a horse (aside from the revolvers)
- "after participating in some further fighting". I don't think this really works tense wise.
- I've rephrased this, is the new phrasing an improvement
- "the unit spent the rest of the war serving outpost duty". "serving outpost duty"? Is that USEng?
- Works in USEng. Anything you would recommend me rephrasing this too?
- "This directive was remanded". "directive"? Do you mean the order? "remanded"? See wikt:remand. I grow more puzzled by this when I find the unit fighting under Marmaduke later in the paragraph.
- Is "rescinded" a better word? Switched to order, as well. The source is just really vague here - ordered to join Marmaduke, then that was not done, and then later they were under Marmaduke. Not very clear, and I'm not aware of another source that contains a detailed formation history of this unit.
- "was too poorly disciplined to be an effective combat unit." Perhaps add a 'considered'? And do we know by whom? Possibly the person who "remanded" the directive?
- Done. And it was considered so by Wood himself.
- "When Marmaduke drew up his plan of attack against the post, Wood's battalion was assigned to a force which was ordered to split from the main Confederate force, which was advancing from the east, and take side roads to attack the Union garrison from the southeast." Suggest this goes in the previous paragraph, so as to split the plans and their execution.
- Done
- "split from the main ... split from the main". Vary the language? In fact, consider tweaking this bit, it reads a bit "flat".
- Done
- "The battalion was reported to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses". When?
- October 1863. Added (I don't know why I didn't include the date in the first place)
- "The unit issued a strength report on November 10, which found that". "found" → 'stated' or 'claimed' or similar.
- Done
- "The report did not mention any artillery component of the unit". Delete "of the unit".
- Removed
- "associated with Price's headquarters. In March 1864, Steele was sent". Perhaps a paragraph break here?
- Split
- "Meanwhile, the Red River campaign had been repulsed". "Meanwhile"? During the Battle of Poison Spring?
- Rephrased
- "by pursuing Confederates during the retreat". "the" → 'their'.
- Done
- "while Marmaduke's and Major General James F. Fagan's division moved against Fort Davidson." division or divisions?
- Yes, this should be the plural. Fixed
- "unable to carry the fort via assault". "via" → 'by'.
- Done
- "The Confederates were unable to carry the fort via assault, and its Union defenders abandoned it that night. Wood's battalion had suffered about 30 casualties during the fighting at Pilot Knob and helped pursue the Union soldiers who had abandoned the fort." The chronology seems to jump around. Why not 1. attack faile 2. casualties during this failure 3. fort abandoned 4. pursuit. And delete "who had abandoned the fort", I think it's clear.
- Done
- Could "depot" be linked to Supply depot?
- Actually it was a railroad depot, so I've linked to that
- "Four companies of recruits were added to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although these men were detached from Wood's battalion during the campaign." I kinda know what you mean, but it reads oddly.
- Does "Four companies of recruits were assigned to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although they served separately during the campaign." work better?
- "Wood's horse was shot during the fighting". Killed.
- done, after checking the source (for a horse that was shot but not killed, see Old Baldy (horse), who suffered at least 5 wounds during the war)
- "Pleasonton continued the fighting with night combat". This seems a little stilted. Maybe 'Pleasonton continued fighting into night'?
- Done
- "most of whom had retreated before". Delete "had".
- Removed
- "Price's column became stuck at the crossing of Mine Creek". Stuck in what way? (Did the wagons stick in the ford?)
- Rephrased
- "While the crossing was occurring" "occurring" → 'taking place'.
- Done
- "the better-armed Union soldiers". I refer to my earlier comment; better than what?
- Clarified. The Confederates mostly had single-shot weapons, while the Union troopers had repeating rifles at Mine Creek
- "Fifty of the prisoners were from Wood's battalion". Exactly fifty?
- I guess so. McGhee p. 105 says It [Wood's battalion] suffered casualties in that debacle [Mine Creek] of 5 killed, 17 wounded, and 50 taken prisoner
That's it for an initial run. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - Initial round of replies done. Would recommend checking the new background information to make sure it is acceptable. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Second run
- Perhaps add a brief description of the Williams guns? They seem a little unconventional.
- "having fought in some further fighting". Umm.
- "and operations against railroads." Perhaps insert a verb? Unless you meant to say that it "fought ... operations against railroads."
- Lead " it was enlarged to regimental strength"; body " four companies that had been attached to the battalion during the campaign and the eight existing companies were consolidated down into ten companies, forming a regiment." So was it "enlarged" or "consolidated down"?
- "The shotguns in particular were inferior to the use of carbines." Maybe 'The shotguns in particular were inferior to carbines.'?
- Perhaps mention that all of these weapons, bar the pistols, were single shot, unlike many of the Union firearms. (I assume none were muzzle loading?) I realise that you already say this later in hte text.
- I like the new background.
- Is it worth mentioning that Price's force consisted entirely of cavalry?
- After the attack fizzled out, the men of Clark's brigade fell back to the creek bed, although Cabell's men made another unsuccessful attack. The Confederates were unable to carry the fort by assault". After the first sentence, the start of the second seems redundant.
- "they began to meet Union resistance." Optional: Insert 'more' or stronger'.
- "drove the Confederates backwards". "backwards" → 'back'?
- Link single-shot.
- "over the course of the entire campaign". Delete "entire".
- "The new unit was named". Why do you describe it as "new"?
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Halidon Hill
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
We are back in the 14th-century again. Once more the Scots decide to risk an open battle. Once more they get hammered by the English. Even more badly than usual. The English king orders "No prisoners!" and executes those who are taken. One RS is titled War Cruel and Sharp. Indeed. Fresh from a rigorous GAN review from Tayi Arajakate (for which many thanks - perhaps you would care to review this FAC?) I believe that this has a fighting chance of being adjudged up to FA standard. No doubt it has all the usual failings of my nominations, but I am relying on you to flag these up and I appreciate your so doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review - pass
Will do this. Hog Farm Talk 15:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nicholson 1965 is not used
- That seems, somehow, to have survived from when I picked up the article in January unweeded. Thanks for picking it up. Removed with prejudice.
- Maxwell 1913 - shouldn't Maxwell be listed as the translator, since he didn't actually write this ancient source?
- He should be. Changed.
- Some older sources here, but they are used appropriately
- Add the same author links for Barrow, Tuck, Prestwich, Given-Wilson, and Rodwell from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burnt Candlemas/archive1
- Done.
- Would Dalrymple happen to be any of the people listed at David Dalrymple
- Nope. But he is this one David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes and added.
- Other author links - Mark Ormrod (historian), May McKisack, John Sadler (historian), Alison Weir
- All added.
- Are you sure the spelling Wyntourn is corrected? Our article at Andrew of Wyntoun doesn't have the r.
- Looks like it's my typo. Amended.
Sources are all reliable; experienced and trusted nominator so spot checks not done. Author-links are optional (I like them because I use them to easily find the reputation of a given cited source when I'm reading articles), but are not necessary criteria components. The only action points are the unused but listed Nicholson source and the queries about Maxwell and Wyntourn. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hog Farm, that was even speedier than you usually are. And just as thorough. All addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've changed the spelling in the inline citation and long citation to Wyntoun without the r per above reply; revert me if this is incorrect/unwanted. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nah. I was sure that I saw that spelling somewhere, but I can't find it and the clear HQ RS consensus is as it now is now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've changed the spelling in the inline citation and long citation to Wyntoun without the r per above reply; revert me if this is incorrect/unwanted. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hog Farm, that was even speedier than you usually are. And just as thorough. All addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the Aftermath map (which would also prevent the caption from wrapping so much). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would also suggest cropping out the upper portion (Orkney, Shetland and a lot of sea) of the map, it pushes the relevant part to the bottom and also makes the section stick out. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tayi Arajakate, good idea, but cropping the top would take out the scale and some other information, but may be the least bad option. I had shrunk the map to avoid it sticking down, but Nikkimaria didn't like it so small. Cropping out the top would also cure this. Unfortunately the crop tool seems to not work on svg files. Any ideas? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it can still be manually cropped but looking at it again, it would remove the longitude degrees as well which is only marked at the top so never mind the suggestion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tayi Arajakate, good idea, but cropping the top would take out the scale and some other information, but may be the least bad option. I had shrunk the map to avoid it sticking down, but Nikkimaria didn't like it so small. Cropping out the top would also cure this. Unfortunately the crop tool seems to not work on svg files. Any ideas? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Jens
- I really love your articles, but it is so hard to find any issues! This time, I managed to at least find one:
- Edward's chosen target was the Scottish border town of Berwick. An Anglo-Scottish border town, – "border town" sounds a bit repetitive. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jens: Complaints, complaints, that's all I ever hear. ;-) I find it difficult to proof read my own work, so thanks for picking that up. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Jens, is there more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, I am supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Jens, is there more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jens: Complaints, complaints, that's all I ever hear. ;-) I find it difficult to proof read my own work, so thanks for picking that up. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
Another splendidly readable battle page from Gog. Only a handful of cavils from me:
- commonly known as turpis pax, "the cowards' peace" – my Latin is rusty fifty-something years after O-level, but I don't think turpis means "cowards'": I think "shameful peace" would be more like it.
- Mine is even rustier - it never really stuck. Changed.
- Edward III was aware of the scheme … Edward III was happy – perhaps drop the "III" the second time? There are quite a few more "Edward III"s later that could with advantage be plain "Edward"s.
- IIIs culled.
- "so populous and of such commercial importance that it might rightly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls" – I really can't believe these are the ipsissima verba of a 14th-century bishop. I mean, "of such commercial importance"? Not convincingly medieval phrasing. I'm a great fan of your source, Eric Robson, as a broadcaster, but I wouldn't necessarily class him as a WP:RS as a historian. I find from a swift Google that most books quote the remarks as "a city so populous and of such trade that it might justly be called another Alexandria, whose riches were the sea and the water its walls". And I see from this and this that the quote is not from Bishop Edington but from the Lanercost Chronicle.
- I consider "of such commercial importance" to be a superior translation into contemporary English to "of such trade". However, you are correct that every other source I can find ascribes it to the Lanercost, so thank you for picking that up. I have clearly been reading straight past it. Changed the wording and the source. (To a slightly more recent one than your suggestions.)
- p.s. - don't forget to change "Bishop Edington" to the "Lanacost Chronicle" in the text.
- I thought that I had! I have now. Thank you Tim. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- p.s. - don't forget to change "Bishop Edington" to the "Lanacost Chronicle" in the text.
- I consider "of such commercial importance" to be a superior translation into contemporary English to "of such trade". However, you are correct that every other source I can find ascribes it to the Lanercost, so thank you for picking that up. I have clearly been reading straight past it. Changed the wording and the source. (To a slightly more recent one than your suggestions.)
Tim riley talk 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- However, whatever concerns Edward – two "evers" in a row. You could do without the "However", I think.
- True, a little sloppy of me.
- The Scots did not have the time … The Scots devastated the countryside _ perhaps just "they" the second time?
- Done.
- an English defeat would likely be a disaster – curious Americanism where BrE usage would be "an English defeat would probably be a disaster"
- I have been reviewing too many USEng artilces. Terminated with prejudice.
- how vulnerable the Scots were to English longbows, so they came through the marshy hollow – in my book, "so" is not a regarded as a conjunction in formal prose: "and so" would be better, I think.
- Done.
- Of the 9 most-senior Scots present … 6 were killed … only 5 survived … a lower figure of 7 – we usually give numbers below 10 as words rather than figures.
- I am used to giving casualties in figures. Changed in the first instance, but not in the second, so as to avoid "of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only five survived
That's all I can come up with by way of quibbles. – Tim riley talk 11:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks Tim for picking up several of my idiocies. That was very thorough of you. All of your comments are now addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Very happy to add my support. I always enjoy Gog's battle articles – military history can be dry for the lay reader, but Gog gives us vivid, page-turning stuff. Beautifully and helpfully illustrated, thoroughly detailed (but not too much so), balanced, and widely sourced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks Tim for picking up several of my idiocies. That was very thorough of you. All of your comments are now addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Queries Support from WereSpielChequers
Very readable, I've made a couple of tweaks hopefully they are of use.
- They are, thank you.
A map showing Berwick, Tweedmouth, Roxburghshire and the various possible crossings of the Tweed would be very useful. I appreciate we may not have all the details, but the relative positions of the armies, each I think on the other side of the border, and the routes they could follow would benefit from a map.
- Done. To the best of my mapmaking skills.
- Thanks, much appreciated. I suspect we don't know much of the detailed dispositions, routes and possible crossing points.
- Done. To the best of my mapmaking skills.
- Also the map of Scotland and the environs could do with showing
Orkney and Shetland as then Norwegian and whether the bit of Ireland shown was then under English control.
- Orkney and Shetland are labelled "(Norway)". I would disagree as to Ulster being under English "control" in 1333 - and one could debate the definition of "control" to death. In any event, I don't see that it is relevant to this article.
- Thanks, must check my glasses, I wasn't sure about that part of Ireland, but didn't the Isle of Man go from Scottish control to English that year?
- Orkney and Shetland are labelled "(Norway)". I would disagree as to Ulster being under English "control" in 1333 - and one could debate the definition of "control" to death. In any event, I don't see that it is relevant to this article.
Douglas seems to have spent the time assembling ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids. This inactivity contrasts with Robert Bruce's swift response to the English siege of Berwick in 1319.[27][33] Douglas launched minor raids into Cumberland, which were insufficient to draw the English forces from the siege but gave Edward a pretext for his invasion.[34]
- Ah, thank you. I seem to have copy edited the meaning out of that. Changed to "The Scots launched minor raids into Cumberland, which achieved little. Douglas assembled ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to attempt to draw the English away from Berwick." Better?
- Yes, much better thanks.
- Ah, thank you. I seem to have copy edited the meaning out of that. Changed to "The Scots launched minor raids into Cumberland, which achieved little. Douglas assembled ever more troops, rather than using those he already had to attempt to draw the English away from Berwick." Better?
I'm not sure how the raids into Cumberland were usable as a pretext for an invasion which already included a siege of Berwick, nor do I get whether the minor raids into Cumberland were a late development, or whether rather than using those he already had to mount diversionary raids, apart from a few minor raids into Cumberland might not make more sense.
- Rewritten. The sources don't explicitly say this, but back in 1333 I suspect that an English invasion followed by Scottish raids could readily be presented as the reverse. Sources of reliable information were non-existent. (I was going to say "few", but I think that would be overstating things.)
- Thanks, that works for me.
- Rewritten. The sources don't explicitly say this, but back in 1333 I suspect that an English invasion followed by Scottish raids could readily be presented as the reverse. Sources of reliable information were non-existent. (I was going to say "few", but I think that would be overstating things.)
the water supply cut sieges rarely last long without water, but British towns and castles of this era often had wells. Was this perhaps the main water supply cut, or even the chance of supply by water being cut by English ships blockading by sea and troops preventing boats travelling down the Tweed from the Scottish parts of its catchment?
- Good point. I have overdone the summary style. Unpacked a little to "four underground pipes supplying water to the town were cut"
- Thanks, I suspect given the tidal location we are talking fresh and clean over brackish and polluted, but that would be drifting into OR.
- Good point. I have overdone the summary style. Unpacked a little to "four underground pipes supplying water to the town were cut"
ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi WereSpielChequers and thanks for the review. Some good points there; all now addressed I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed" - were there specific reasons why it collapsed, or just a general dislike of the Scots for a collaborator with the English
- Unpacked a little. See what you think.
- "A gallows was constructed in sight of the town walls and, as the highest-ranking hostage, Thomas Seton was hanged while his parents watched." - is this still on the 11th?
- Yes. Took a bit of digging, but we have a date for the purported relief (12 July) which I have added. The hanging was the next day - the 13th - also added.
- I think there's a little bit of chronological overlap in the battle description. "More than 500 Scots were killed in this fight, including both of the schiltron's noble commanders, before it too collapsed and the survivors fled" - but then in the next section, this sciltron is said to have not broken yet, and it isn't mentioned to have broken until after the other two are run into the sea. Is it possible to try to make the chronology a little clearer
- I have tweaked the wording in both attack and rout to try and smooth the chronology.
- "English casualties were reported as in some chronicles as 14, while others give a lower figure of 7" - I've read that chronicles about battles from this age sometimes only enumerate the number of knights who became casualties, but not the non-noble foot soldiers. Is it known if this is a figure of knights or a total?
- It's the total. You are quite right about casualties among common soldiers often not being mentioned, but in this case the chronicles explicitly include them in their counts. (A phrase from a Scottish chronicle on this battle: "so many nobles were killed that it would be tedious to give all their names"!) If this were not the case I would have so specified.
- This is an a category about registered historic battlefields - likely worth a mention, especially for WP:CATV's sake.
- A very good thought. Added.
Very good work here; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks as ever HF. Your usual set of insightful comments. All addressed above I believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wondering if "The uncultivated scrub and march of 1333" should be marsh instead of march, but comprehensive support otherwise, as I checked sourcing and images as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- LOL. Yes it could. And thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wondering if "The uncultivated scrub and march of 1333" should be marsh instead of march, but comprehensive support otherwise, as I checked sourcing and images as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks as ever HF. Your usual set of insightful comments. All addressed above I believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Z1720
Non-expert review.
- "as Edward was happy to cause trouble for his northern neighbour." cause trouble might be WP:IDIOM, maybe "as Edward wanted to destabalise the rule of his northern neighbour."?
- I don't see that this is an idiom. It is, in the words of WP:IDIOM a "direct, literal expression".
- " but turned a blind eye to his forces sailing" blind eye is an idiom, perhaps "but did not interfere with his forces when they sailed..."
- Changed.
- "He had prepared for Balliol and Beaumont, but he died ten days before they sailed." Delete the second he
- Done.
- "Almost immediately, Balliol granted Edward Scottish estates to a value of £2,000," add a Template:Inflation for the amount?
- Done.
- "According to a contemporary chronicle," to prevent MOS:EASTEREGG, maybe "According to The Lanercost Chronicle, a contemporary account of north English history,"
- I don't see that this is an Easter egg. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on". There is a link to "a contemporary chronicle", a reader clicks on it and finds details of a contemporary chronicle.
- A reader has to click on the link to discover that this information came from the Lanercost Chronicle. Why not name the chronicle in the article, as is done in another place in the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Because it breaks the flow of the prose (IMO) by going off into an explanation of the source and will mean nothing to virtually all readers. Explaining that level of detail is just what Wikilinks are for.
- A reader has to click on the link to discover that this information came from the Lanercost Chronicle. Why not name the chronicle in the article, as is done in another place in the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see that this is an Easter egg. It does not "require the reader to open [it] before understanding what's going on". There is a link to "a contemporary chronicle", a reader clicks on it and finds details of a contemporary chronicle.
- "Douglas was now faced with a difficult situation, but felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick." Not sure if the first half of this sentence is NPOV, as it puts an opinion in wikivoice. I don't think it's needed and the sentence can start with "Douglas felt obliged to come to the relief of Berwick."
- Rephrased.
- "The Scots were challenged to do their worst." I think do their worst is an idiom, so reword? Maybe a direct quote of their response would be more appropriate.
- Rephrased.
- "Whatever concerns Edward had for his queen," I don't think this is needed as it doesn't really provide information to the reader.
- Removed.
- "They devastated the countryside but Edward ignored this too." comma after countryside?
- Not in my school of commaisation. But feel free to try and persuade me why it is needed.
- When I read it in my head, I place a pause there and therefore think a comma is necessary. Others might read it differently, which is why I put a question mark for this comment.
- I assumed so, and accept that commas after buts are common. I find it almost impossible to say it in my head with a pause and when I say it out loud with a pause it sounds as if I have a speech defect. My understanding is that, like serial commas, either approach is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently. Hence I grudging restrain myself when I come across ", but" when reviewing. (But usually not when copy editing.)
- When I read it in my head, I place a pause there and therefore think a comma is necessary. Others might read it differently, which is why I put a question mark for this comment.
- Not in my school of commaisation. But feel free to try and persuade me why it is needed.
- "He positioned the English army on Halidon Hill, a small rise of some 600 feet (180 metres), 2 miles (3.2 km) to the north-west of Berwick, which gives an excellent view of the town and the vicinity." -> which gave an excellent view, as this keeps the sentence in past-tense.
- I don't want it in the past tense. That would imply that the view has changed, which it hasn't.
- "Douglas gave a fire-eating speech" What is a fire-eating speech? Please wikilink or explain in the article.
- Changed.
- "One Scottish account says that of 203 men-at-arms made knights – "dubbed" – immediately before the battle, only 5 survived." I think the dashes should be replaced with brackets, as it reads weird to me, but I might be wrong)
- Done. (Although it now reads a little oddly to me.)
- Although the brackets are an improvement imo, I think rearranging might be even better, like "One Scottish account says that 203 men-at-arms were made knights immediately before the battle in a process called dubbing; only 5 survived."
- Nope. Then you distract the reader by trying to sneak a complicated explanation into a sentence mostly about something else.
- Although the brackets are an improvement imo, I think rearranging might be even better, like "One Scottish account says that 203 men-at-arms were made knights immediately before the battle in a process called dubbing; only 5 survived."
- Done. (Although it now reads a little oddly to me.)
- There's an image of a monument to the battle in the "Scottish rout" section, but no mention of this monument in the "Battlefield today" section. Is there any information on monuments or displays erected to commemorate this event?
- Very good point. Done.
- The ISBN of "Brie, Friedrich (1960)" is located in the OCLC. The ISSN number of "Nicholson, Ranald (1961)" is in the OCLC. I am able to access it by clicking on the OCLC number in the article, which brings me to their World Cat page. These should be added.
- Why?
- This inclusion or non-inclusion will not factor into my support. However, per WP:CITEVAR, reference style should be consistent. I interpret this to mean that all the citations should have the same parameters defined, if available. Most of the citations with an ISBN and ISSN have those included, the two highlighted above should also have them included. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have consistently used ISBNs when they were allocated to a book when it was published and OCLCs when ISBNs weren't. This, obviously, mostly applies to pre-1967 works. This is a fairly common approach. WP:INDICATEAVAIL says "providing an ISBN or OCLC number", which seems to allow for this.
- This inclusion or non-inclusion will not factor into my support. However, per WP:CITEVAR, reference style should be consistent. I interpret this to mean that all the citations should have the same parameters defined, if available. Most of the citations with an ISBN and ISSN have those included, the two highlighted above should also have them included. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why?
Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Z1720, lots of good stuff there; I do like your reviews. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720, likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Z1720, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- My comments have been addressed, so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720, likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Z1720, lots of good stuff there; I do like your reviews. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
New Zealand nationality law
This article is about the history and regulations of New Zealand nationality. This article shows the gradual change in status of New Zealanders from colonial subjects to citizens of an independent sovereign nation. Horserice (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Image review File:Dominion of New Zealand passport.jpg would be copyrighted 100 years from creation per c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/New_Zealand#Government works. Other image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Taweetham
The article is well-written, neutral and comprehensive. I support it for FA. My comments in comparison with similar articles for Australia (and other commonwealth countries) are:
- around the discussion on discrimination of non-white or Chinese people around 1900s. In Australia, it was called White Australia policy and it seems that in this case it was New Zealand head tax. I believe that the paragraph before "Territorial acquisitions" could be made clearer as a new subsection with {{main}} linking to a relevant article. --Taweetham (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oath of Citizenship (New Zealand) (or Oath_of_citizenship#_New_Zealand) should be linked to/from the article. Elaborate (if possible) on (presence or absence of) the issue of the references to God/Queen in the oath either directly in the article for nationality law or in the article for the oath. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Citizenship ceremony" is mentioned once in the article. There is no "Citizenship Day" for New Zealand. (or it is just not mentioned in the article.) Waitangi Day is not mentioned in the article (for citizenship ceremony). Please confirm that we do not miss anything that should be covered in the article in this aspect. You definitely know the subject the best. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added the requirement for successful applicants to attend a citizenship ceremony. I'm not sure what I should slip into the article for a Waitangi Day mention. If anyone else has any ideas though, I'd be happy to put it in.
- This fact "Your ceremony is held by your local council. After your New Zealand citizenship is approved, your ceremony will usually take place within 3 to 5 months." https://www.govt.nz/browse/passports-citizenship-and-identity/nz-citizenship/how-to-apply-for-nz-citizenship/citizenship-ceremonies/ may need to be incorporated into the article. --Taweetham (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added the requirement for successful applicants to attend a citizenship ceremony. I'm not sure what I should slip into the article for a Waitangi Day mention. If anyone else has any ideas though, I'd be happy to put it in.
- Apart from the legislation, in Australia, a very useful material that people can research on citizenship and migration laws is Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) on LEGENDcom. A residency calculator, citizenship test/interview information are probably available from a government or a reputable website for free. Please see if anything to this effect exists for the case of New Zealand and if it is worth mentioning in the article (or external links section). It is possible to mention that these requirements (test/interview) do not exist (or just trivial). This will help make the article more informative and practical. --Taweetham (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added external link to government self-check tool at bottom.
- I am not knowledgeable on this. Please see if this should be included. Citizenship test is a big deal elsewhere and if there is serious discussion about it in New Zealand then it may need to be in the article. "NZ First MP and Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin said she would prefer to give some consideration to a citizenship test, similar to Canada." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/367595/nz-first-members-want-migrants-and-refugees-to-sign-to-core-values --Taweetham (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added external link to government self-check tool at bottom.
- To my understanding, all past Referendums in New Zealand are not relevant to the citizenship law. (Unlike the situation in Australia, 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) was very important to define citizenship of indigenous people.) Having said that, the nationality law is still probably an important aspect of Independence of New Zealand. It may be useful to mention/link to/from the article Independence of New Zealand. --Taweetham (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Statistics/numerical aspect in the article: If possible, I wish to see the implication of the nationality law on the population of New Zealand. This can be either longitudinal or cross-sectional. An example statement is "In 2016 nearly half (49%) of all Australians were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas." It may be linked to/from the articles Demographics of New Zealand and Immigration to New Zealand). --Taweetham (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- For Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, please confirm if this is similar to Norfolk_Island#Immigration_and_citizenship. The residency time can count toward naturalization but it is actually outside Australian migration zone. It is an important and interesting legal point. --Taweetham (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe time in the Realm countries counts towards that requirement, but an applicant needs to hold permanent residence before they are able to apply for citizenship. Since the minimum requirement for PR in the Realm countries is 10 years, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of being granted citizenship; any person qualifying for permanent residence there would also have already met the five-year requirement for NZ citizenship. Horserice (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done Any technical issues are probably addressed in the residency calculator link or in the articles of Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. I reread the Norfolk_Island article again and found that things have changed since 2016. --Taweetham (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe time in the Realm countries counts towards that requirement, but an applicant needs to hold permanent residence before they are able to apply for citizenship. Since the minimum requirement for PR in the Realm countries is 10 years, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of being granted citizenship; any person qualifying for permanent residence there would also have already met the five-year requirement for NZ citizenship. Horserice (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from ProcrastinatingReader
I don't really review FAs so take my comments with a grain of salt :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a couple quick notes for now:
- No worries, thanks for taking the time to review :)
Lead
New Zealand was previously a colony of the British Empire and local residents were British subjects. Over the span of the nation's gradual independence from the United Kingdom, subject status became Commonwealth citizenship.
- this reads like "British subject" status became Commonwealth citizenship, which I don't think is true (or at least may be a bit of a simplification). The term "British subject" is a bit complicated I think so some rephrasing here could aid with understanding.- Answering this with the other question on British subjects below.
- I'm still not sure about this, especially as it links to the British subject article (which talks about the current meaning of the term and doesn't match up with the usage in the lead). Separately, the way it reads comes across as "New Zealand residents were classed as British subjects, which then became Commonwealth citizenship." I don't know how to describe exactly why, but that just reads wrong IMO. It could just be me, though; another reviewer might be better placed to say whether it's really a problem or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I rephrased it, let me know if that works. Horserice (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure about this, especially as it links to the British subject article (which talks about the current meaning of the term and doesn't match up with the usage in the lead). Separately, the way it reads comes across as "New Zealand residents were classed as British subjects, which then became Commonwealth citizenship." I don't know how to describe exactly why, but that just reads wrong IMO. It could just be me, though; another reviewer might be better placed to say whether it's really a problem or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Answering this with the other question on British subjects below.
History
Any person born in New Zealand (or anywhere within Crown dominions) was a natural-born British subject. Foreign nationals who were not British subjects had limited property rights and could not own land.
What about foreign nationals who were either born in the UK (thus British citizens) or foreign nationals who were British subjects but not born in a Crown dominion?
- Rephrased to clarify status of UK-born subjects. For the second part of your question, presumably you mean foreign nationals who naturalised as British subjects in other parts of the Empire? The following paragraph on imperial vs local naturalisation answers this.
- Since article notes
Until the mid-19th century, it was unclear whether naturalisation regulations in the United Kingdom were applicable elsewhere in the Empire.
it may also be helpful context to say that British nationality law was uncodified until 1914, and until then largely worked through common law afaik.
- Added.
British subjects who had already been naturalised in another part of the Empire could apply to be naturalised again in New Zealand without residence requirements.
What were the general residence requirements?- Rephrased this sentence to remove the reference to residence requirements. There was no specific timeframe according to the legislation, the governor just had to approve a person's application. Presumably, they would have been resident in NZ for some time since travel between anywhere off the islands during this time period was inconvenient to say the least.
- That works too. Could be worth checking a secondary source to be sure. It's not uncommon for acts to be implemented differently in practice than in law (see sentencing guidelines vs statutory requirements, for example). So a law that says it's up to the governor to approve an application may well be backed with de facto requirements (set by the governor or someone to whom the power is delegated). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I found secondary sourcing supporting the lack of residence requirements and discretionary governor's approval. That should be good? Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, that's good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Awesome, let me know if there's anything else I should clean up or if we're all good here. Horserice (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, that's good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I found secondary sourcing supporting the lack of residence requirements and discretionary governor's approval. That should be good? Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- That works too. Could be worth checking a secondary source to be sure. It's not uncommon for acts to be implemented differently in practice than in law (see sentencing guidelines vs statutory requirements, for example). So a law that says it's up to the governor to approve an application may well be backed with de facto requirements (set by the governor or someone to whom the power is delegated). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Rephrased this sentence to remove the reference to residence requirements. There was no specific timeframe according to the legislation, the governor just had to approve a person's application. Presumably, they would have been resident in NZ for some time since travel between anywhere off the islands during this time period was inconvenient to say the least.
- That paragraph is largely cited to the Act itself. Does any secondary source discuss this at all? Just in case, for example, the application of the law was different to as-worded in the Act.
- Added more sourcing there.
Foreign nationals becoming New Zealand citizens are no longer naturalised, but receive citizenship by grant
"citizenship by grant"?- Citizenship by grant is the actual term used by the government to refer to naturalisation. I had italicised the different types of obtaining citizenship, but these were removed in GA review.
- It could be worth introducing "citizenship by grant"; right now a term is being used that isn't introduced or explained to the reader, which (to me at least) seems a bit confusing. Or using formatting to indicate it's just the official term for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Citizenship by grant is the actual term used by the government to refer to naturalisation. I had italicised the different types of obtaining citizenship, but these were removed in GA review.
... which redefined British subject to no longer also mean Commonwealth citizen.
What did it now mean? (if what it now meant isn't relevant to this article, and I suspect it isn't, then perhaps this portion can just be trimmed?)
Comments from SusunW
Comment: The fact that nationality is not the same as citizenship should be spelled out. Yes, I get that the British Empire, and thus Commonwealth Nations, tend to use the terms synonymously, but nationality is belonging and governed by international law, whereas citizenship is rights and obligations governed by domestic law. In essence nationality describes the relationship of persons to the nation and citizenship describes their relationship and responsibilities within the nation.
- Where do you think it should go in this article? And are you saying that an explanation probably needs to be given in every nationality law article?
- I typically put it in the lede and yes, IMO it should go in every nationality law article (and we should have an entire series of "Citizenship in Foo" articles), primarily because British influence is huge, lots of people misunderstand the term, and there is a definite legal distinction. Also because we must focus on readers. Conflating the two terms makes it difficult for readers to understand the historical position of many states to have citizen-nationals and non-citizen nationals. In other words, having nationality doesn't automatically entitle you to rights. (By the by I loved your talk page discussion on the confusion.) I am guessing you have sources, based on that discussion.
Lede:
- Foreign nationals may be granted citizenship? They are granted nationality. Once they have that, they are entitled to certain rights as citizens.
- What change would you want here? It doesn't help that NZ literally gives people citizenship by grant.
- Yes, I get it, but I think it causes confusion for readers to grasp the differences. I'd say "Foreigners may be granted nationality".
Colonial-era policy:
- "law during this time was uncodified" is confirmed by the source, but the fact that it was based upon common law and precedent is not. Those are confirmed in McMillan & Hood, p 2, or Karatani p. 41 thus add citation.
- Done.
- "British subjects who had already been naturalized" source says oath was waved if they had taken it previously.
- Done.
- "Additionally, foreign women who married" did they lose their nationality of origin? Were they required to take an oath of allegiance and did that negate their original nationality? (I totally get that there may not be sources but based on my own work on the topic, usually acquisition in this period was without consent and with the consequence of losing their original nationality)
- Nevermind. Fransman, p 137 says it did not result in loss of other nationality. I don't know if it is worth mentioning that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Act (which did require women to lose their original nationality).[2]
- No action on this?
- Your call. I would probably put in a note that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Law, but it's totally up to you.
- Nevermind. Fransman, p 137 says it did not result in loss of other nationality. I don't know if it is worth mentioning that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Act (which did require women to lose their original nationality).[2]
- "assimilate the Māori" link to cultural assimilation
- Done.
- "Franchise qualification" Bourassa & Strong state on 234-235 that individual title was required to vote. Perhaps you should clarify that it isn't just owning land, but an individual property qualification? (and fix the citation, which only shows p 233, rather than 233-235.)
- Done.
- "Voters of partial Māori descent" source specifies only males. While I note that you stated above women were enfranchised in 1893, the implication is that the system in 1867 was only racially discriminatory, when in fact it also discriminated on the basis of gender. Perhaps: The laws restricted voting, allowing only males to participate. It assigned "[v]oters of partial Māori descent" "to an electorate…"
- I changed it to "Male voters..." and "Men who were exactly half-Māori..." to express that point without being too verbose.
- Works for me, thank you.
- I note that most of the sourcing in "Discriminatory policies against Chinese migrants" is to the acts themselves. Any secondary treatment available? Perhaps, if this is by this George Andrews it is a RS.
- My reading of Tagupa is that 1923 and 1928 did not restrict Samoan status to naturalization, i.e. "… it would be right to say that they deprecate the automatic bestowal of the nationality of the mandatory power upon the inhabitants of the mandated territory," if they were born after its passage. p 23 (You can find more pp=364-365 and pp=367-368 if you sign in to the Wikipedia Library. Basically, in the Lesa case, the court concluded that indeed the law, "[made] British subjects by birth those persons who were born in Western Samoa while the two Acts were successively in force". Brookfield, 367) In spite of the fact, that the mandate prohibited them from extending their nationality to inhabitants of a mandated territory, (Tagupa, p 21) NZ apparently did just that, which might be worth mentioning.
- Added mention of commission recommendation and tweaked the phrasing a bit on the earlier part. See if that works.
- Better. Thanks!
Imperial common code:
- "The Imperial Parliament brought" is cited to primary. Baldwin, p 527 confirms info in a secondary source, which you might want to add to reduce reliance on primary sources.
- Done.
- "lost her British nationality through marriage could renaturalise" sounds as if she was naturalized to begin with. Baldwin says only she could naturalize without a residency requirement. The issue was that having stolen her nationality, she now had an option to repatriate, if she naturalized. It's an important distinction because she has to qualify; it's neither automatic nor is there a guarantee that she will regain her nationality, as pointed out by Mercer p 35
- Changed "renaturalise" to "reacquire that status".
- Fine.
Changing relationship with Britain:
- "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own citizenship" should be nationality requirements. Citizenship is defined in domestic statutes, and as far as I am aware, do not go into effect until a person reaches majority, thus throughout the paragraph, it should probably read nationals and nationality.
- Then... I would still be describing New Zealand citizens as British nationals here until 1977?
- No, I would say "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own nationality requirements." Sorry if I wasn't clear.
- The entire paragraph indicated above is cited to the Act itself and should possibly be cited to McMillan & Hood, p 6 where you can to avoid reliance on primary sourcing.
- "The 1948 Act redefined the term British" again is mostly cited to primary sources. Perhaps this, this, or this would assist in providing secondary sources.
- I am confused by page numbering associated with McMillan 2015. You cite "Voting rights were extended" to p 103. While that might be the case if the url was to the book, the url is for the chapter excerpt which is numbered 1-27. I do find the information on p 3, but there is no such page as 103.
- Changed this.
- Thanks.
Transition to national citizenship:
- I am not sure about "While there have been formal reviews…the oath remains unchanged". First, citing to the actual oath does not tell us it has or has not changed. But second, the link to the "Oaths Modernisation Bill" says it will change the oath to loyalty to NZ and NZ values, while respecting that those values include loyalty to the Queen.(Main reforms). However, I am unclear as to whether the bill passed or did not pass. At the top it says discharged on 01 June 2010 what does that mean? If failed, that would be your citation for "remains unchaged", but if it means it passed then did in not change in 2010?
- I cited the Bill specifically because it did not pass and it's meant as a reference in contrast to the existing oath.
- Except that requires drawing a conclusion. Thus, the statement should be cited to the Oaths Modernisation Bill.
- I don’t find a citation for ending birthright citizenship at Sawyer 671. 653 says automatic birthright citizenship ended and 654 says NZ combines jus soli and jus sanguinis, and confirms that was a trend in commonwealth nations.
- Fixed.
- "Children born in New Zealand" citation is clearly incorrect. 2006 law cannot be confirmed in a 1977 piece of legislation. It is confirmed however, in Sawyer p 653. Fix citation please.
- The Citizenship Act 1977 as cited is the consolidated law containing all amendments from 1977 until today. Just because the title contains the year doesn't mean that the information in it is all from that year, as in other Commonwealth countries. However, I changed the primary source to the 2005 amending Act to clarify it, in addition to citing Sawyer.
- Cool.
- Strongly suggest that you do not cite everything following "In 1982, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" to the actual case files. Interpreting law is tricky. Above links given for Alison Quentin-Baxter and F. M. Brookfield should provide secondary analysis.
- Supplemented with secondary sourcing.
- Thanks
- "The Cook Islands became", again all sources in this paragraph are primary. Cook Islands is confirmed by McMillan & Hood, p 11; Niue on McMillan & Hood, p 12; Foreign affairs McMillan & Hood, p 11; and retaining NZ nationality McMillan & Hood, pp 11-12
Acquisition and loss of citizenship:
- "Nationality regulations apply" citation is to the act itself. Dawson p 201 (linked above) verifies the information that it is throughout NZ territory and says also extended to those born on aircraft or ships registered in the country or belonging to the government. McMillan & Hood p 3 lists all the nations in the "realm".
- "Individuals born within the Realm receive New Zealand citizenship at birth", see comment above, citizenship begins at majority, I’m fairly sure you mean nationality and shouldn't this be qualified as Since 2006, "individuals born…" and cited to Sawyer 653?
- I get that you're drawing a line between nationality and citizenship on generic terms, totally get that. Not sure how that reads to an ordinary layperson or how to incorporate that distinction correctly into prose when these terms are so conflated in the Anglosphere. It does not help that the government also literally talks about citizenship by birth. Sawyer 653 wouldn't support talking about nationality either because nowhere on that page does she mention the word "nationality".
- I know, it's insanely difficult. As for governments, they are people and typically not academics or legal scholars, so they also conflate the terms. In the European University Institute's series of "Report on Citizenship Law: Foo", all of the Latin American authors explained that they were told to use citizenship for the project, despite the fact that the topic was nationality and called that in their laws. British academic, Bronwyn Manby, who has written extensively on Africa stated that in her early versions of "Citizenship Law in Africa" she used citizenship, but in her later versions opted to use nationality to clarify that the comparison is about belonging and not domestic rights (but she didn't rename the series). ;) As a general rule, if a source uses the words synonymously, the context determines if it is nationality or citizenship being discussed.
- The rest of the section also appears to be cited to the 1977 Act itself. I am fairly sure that by combining McMillan & Hood, Dawson, and Sawyer you can convert most of the citations to secondary sources and I'll be happy to review it again once that has been done.
Rights and restrictions:
- Entire section is referenced to primary sources. However, that being said, I am not sure that a discussion of domestic rights is relative to the topic of Nationality law, as they have nothing to do with how one legally acquires or loses nationality. You may want to consider removing this section and revising it to concern only issues effecting migration, which clearly are the subject of international, rather than domestic law.
- Not sure I understand this sentence "New Zealand citizens without residency in the other Realm countries do not have an automatic right to live or work in there". To work where? In New Zealand or in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau? I think from the citations you mean the latter, but the sentence needs to specify. Rather than cite to the acts, McMillan & Hood, p 11 says NZers don't have rights to residency in Cook Islands and this also notes they don't have residency rights in Niue or Tokelau. (Also has some interesting notes on parts of the 1977 law which are still in play in these places that are no longer valid in NZ itself).
- Australia section, New Zealanders in Australia: A Quick Guide, is not as far as I can tell a publication of Parliament. Looks to me as if independent researchers rather than parliamentarians compiled the report, i.e. by Susan Love and Michael Klapdor published in Research Paper Series, vol 2019-2020, issn=2203-5249, which is produced by the Parliamentary Library in Canberra? It confirms the information in the rest of the paragraph and were it me, I'd cite to it rather than to the government travel advisory notice which has no author and is definitely a government publication.
- I am confused as to what Australian's holding dual nationality have to do with New Zealand? Are they barred from holding office in New Zealand? That would be relevant, but the fact that they cannot hold office in Australia does not seem to be pertinent to New Zealand nationality. I would delete this paragraph unless dual nationality impacts them in New Zealand.
- Comment: I note that while you discussed dual nationality about Australia, there is no section dealing with New Zealand’s policy on the issue. I would expect to find both it and a section on "Loss of Nationality", as it is defined in NZ law in a comprehensive article on nationality law. (Loss is covered in McMillan & Hood, pp 16-17)
- UK section, again I would not put domestic rights in an article about international law. Are there pertinent migration issues, i.e. visas, lack of visas, residency waivers etc. that should be included?
That's it for me. Thank you so much for your work on the article. Happy to discuss any of the points or clarify my thoughts if it isn't clear. Overall, really well written and I appreciate that it is difficult to find sources. I was so happy to discover that we have access to the HeinOnline collections through the WP Library. The access makes finding secondary sourcing much simpler. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for taking the time. Making my way through all these points but not done yet. Horserice (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I know I probably evaluated it more stringently because of my own work on the topic. I appreciate that you grasp my desire to make the subject clearer to the reader and I appreciate your skill with succinctness. Thank you for your patience with me. As I said, it's a tough topic, rather you take your time and we get it as accurate as we can. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Note to coordinators
I have completed a spot-check of sourcing (well in truth, I reviewed every source that was open access). SusunW (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example, the specific date of royal assent
- I see that the article relies heavily on primary/non-independent sourcing - can you speak to your approach to this?
- Be consistent in what types of refs include location
- FN131 is missing authors
- FN135: formatting doesn't match similar refs
- FN138: date doesn't match source. Ditto FN141, check for others
- Is there a reason not to use citation templates for legislation?
- Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
- Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Star Control 3
- Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a classic video game from the mid 1990s. It was well-received on release, but lives in the shadow of Star Control II, not to mention the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series. Still, the game has a legacy of its own and is worth highlighting, coming up on its 25th anniversary in just over 7 weeks.
My hope is to get this to featured quality by the time of its anniversary, and I'm willing to work extra hard to make that a reality. A lot of work has been put in already, including a peer review and a good article nomination. I'm confident that the research is comprehensive and thorough, and that there are no issues with image copyright. I'd like to think the prose is in good shape too, but there's always a few good suggestions in the FA process. Thanks in advance to the reviewers and looking forward to working on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
PS: I received permission from the committee to open this FA nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Sandbh
Support.
- In the Plot section, who is The Captain?
- In the Design and Production section, it says, "smoothly on a 486". What is a 486?
- Should the article say something about the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series?
The FAC criteria appear met to me although I cannot speak for the media in terms of compliance with image use policy. Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: All three of these are good suggestions and I added some short phrases to clarify. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The first two were well done. Can't see any action taken wrt to the last one. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This image [3], at 16K, is too small for an FA article. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I improved the phrasing around the fate of the sequel. Otherwise, I've decided to leave the better coverage of the series at the main article. I'm wary of going off on a tangent about the whole IP history after Star Control 3. (The copyright reverted to the original creators, but not the trademark, leading to a game called The Ur-Quan Masters, which followed from Star Control II, but not Star Control 3, which is the main topic here. It gets really pedantic.) I've tweaked it and left it at a good point, to avoid (a) going off-topic, (b) being redundant, (c) those redundancies turning into a WP:CONTENTFORK over time.
- The image is a tricky thing. As you can see from the history, a bot came along and shrunk it. There is a comparable image here, but I've always had a hard time uploading, and I'm not sure if a bot will come along and shrink it again anyway.
- I know that's not quite what you suggested, but hopefully that addresses the remaining issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Shooterwalker: Good. Could you try adding a nobots template to the article, and uploading a higher res image? Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Before attempting something like that, please take a look at WP:IMAGERES. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: The WP:IMAGERES link from Nikkimaria indicates that the image is already at the high end. Instead of wrestling with this guidance, I tweaked the image caption so the reader gets what they need from it. It's always tricky when I'm getting conflicting advice here, but this is my best effort to thread that needle. Let me know if this is acceptable now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Checking back in one more time to see if you had time to read the comment from Nikkimaria. Hoping I found an acceptable alternative. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: All good by me. Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: All good by me. Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Before attempting something like that, please take a look at WP:IMAGERES. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Shooterwalker: Good. Could you try adding a nobots template to the article, and uploading a higher res image? Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Star Control 3 is a 1996 action-adventure game developed by Legend Entertainment. It is the third installment in the Star Control trilogy. - could probably merge these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lede sentences usually cover the publisher. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added the publisher and platforms, which makes each sentence longer. Kept them separate for readability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lede feels a little short, it goes from the lede sentence into the plot. For instance, it doesn't cover the release dates, the consoles it was released on, and not much development info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added some development info. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- mysterious collapse of hyperspace - this doesn't mean much to a reader without prior knowledge Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified and wikilinked. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- alien dialog - does this just mean talking? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikilinked for explanation of dialog systems in games. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think actually explaining how the game works, rather than pointing out changes from SC2 would be helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified the main gameplay that ties the series together. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a link is required for "sequel". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Combat offers more detailed steering and aiming, as well as additional player versus player multiplayer options - is this online? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is from a very early period that included many player vs player options, not just online. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- However, the legacy of Star Control 3 would suffer from comparisons to the award-winning Star Control II.[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- action-adventure science fiction game - WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The body of an article needs to also be written as if the lede didn't exist. I'd recommend something explaining what Star Control as a series is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is hard to explain as each game is quite different. But I rephrased this to start with what's the same instead of what's different. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is it not "dialogue", rather than "dialog"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think both are acceptable, but I'll go with this since it's closer to the article title at dialogue tree. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The gameplay results around how it differs from Star Control 2, rather than how the game actually plays. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tried to rephrase some of this, so it feels less like a comparison and more like an explanation of the series' evolution. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- SVGA star map - this needs explaining. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Rephrased to make this a little more clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- All three of the original Star Control games feature 2D "melee" ship combat.[10] Star Control 3 offers the overhead viewpoint from the first two games, as well as a new 2.5D pseudo-3D viewpoint - I have no idea what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tried to rephrase this with less jargon and more wikilinks. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- multiplayer player versus player - isn't the first thing implied by the second? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree this is redundant and fixed it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- network, modem, and serial connections - seems a bit in depth? Why not "online"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This was a big turning point in game history, and using a local area network was sometimes easier than using the internet. It's unique to this period of gaming and I doubt many games still offer that feature anymore. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Much of the game involves dialog with alien races, each with unique personalities - but what does this actually do? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified this too. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- assembled a "bible" - might need esplaination - I'm assuming this is some sort of cheat sheet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The story expands on the mystery of the Precursors' disappearance, and introduces new enemies in the form of the Hegemonic Crux - this isn't really development. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- inches-thick + not needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The team eventually finished 24 alien characters and animations - this reads like there was 24 animations... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- (the first Star Control game for Sega consoles since the original),[23 - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The game was also delayed - no need for this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- "modern computers" WP:RECENTISM Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't sales sections usually after the critical reception? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I forget where the MOS is for reception sections, but my understanding is that we don't state scores for the reviews in the prose if they are in the box. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to Metacritic, Star Control 3 has a score of 89% based on the reviews of 5 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews. - "according to review aggregator website Metacritic, the game recieved "generally favourable" reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The reception is probably the weakest point - it pretty much just gives a summary of the publications, rather than give critical insight. Generally we make a point, and comment on that with the reviews. There's quite a few reviews in the review box, but the section is quite small. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
- There's a bare URL Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why are we linking to GameFAQs? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- These must have creeped in from another editor. Fixed them. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Tried to address all of these, with comments. I agree that the gameplay needed a clearer sequence, to explain the gameplay properly to an outside reader. Hopefully it's in better shape now. Happy to keep running with this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Did another round of revisions, attempting to address these through re-phrasing and re-organizing. Sales sections usually fit wherever they flow the best, for example at the start with Chrono Trigger. I took a crack at re-phrasing the reception section somewhat. I've actually been advised to not draw any critical insight from the reviews, instead using Wikipedia's neutral summary style. But I tried to expand on the main themes – the combination of different gameplay, the story and characters, and the comparisons to Star Control II – while still erring on the side of concision. Thanks for the thorough review and hopefully that addresses your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was just thinking something per WP:RECEPTION. I'll take another read through. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I came back to it with a fresh perspective. I try to avoid synthesizing together sources, but this felt like it was a pretty plain observation that helps summarize the reviews. Hopefully the section gives a clearer overview about where the critics landed now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. Drop me a line when/if you have covered all the points above and I'll take another read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I think I did! Apologies if that wasn't clear. I worked through your last round of comments, along with multiple passes on the reception now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. Drop me a line when/if you have covered all the points above and I'll take another read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Viridian Bovary
Hi, my comments are mostly general as I'm not familiar with video game articles. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- All images should have ALT text.
- I don't think the wikilink on "published" is needed but I guess it's fine to keep it.
- As the third installment in the Star Control trilogy, the game was released for the personal computer in 1996 and the Macintosh in 1998. I suggest removing the "As" at the beginning.
- The single-player mode is similar to the previous game, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat. How about: The game employs a single-player mode that is similar to the previous installment, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat.
- I have a query. Shouldn't the sentence about the game's release come after the discussion of it's development in the lede?
- Star Control 3 features a 2D "melee" ship combat system, similar to that of the first two games. I don't know what a "melee" is. Perhaps you should link it to melee.
- I'm not sure who "the Captain" is.
- It debuted on PC Data's computer game sales charts at #11 in September 1996, and climbed to tenth place the following month. According to MOS:NUM, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. So I think either the "11" or the "tenth" should be altered.
- I think it'd be better if you could try paraphrasing the PC Gamer's quote.
- I can see some repetitions of "gave the game" / "Giving the game" some stars. I think it's better if you can revise these sentences to avoid over-use.
This is all for now. Nice work on the article. :) I shall have a look at it again once my initial comments are addressed. I have a current FAC open and would welcome any comments. Thank you. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Viridian Bovary: I just tried my best to fix these issues. "Melee" and "captain" are terms from the games, so I tried my best to clarify that. I'm getting a bit of conflicting advice on where to put the release information, but User:Lee Vilenski is right that this is probably standard. (See Chrono Trigger or Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.) Hopefully that addresses all your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely much improved but I'd suggest paraphrasing the PC gamer's quote since it's a tad too long.
- @Viridian Bovary: Advice well taken. Let me know if it reads better now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reception looks much better now. If you don't mind, I've copy-edited it slightly. Also, I have a few other comments.
- I think the sentence: The gameplay is distinct from the rest of the series,[2] combining gameplay from the first two games with new game mechanics of its own. sounds a bit tedious; "game" is repeated too many times in the sentence. I suggest rewording it.
- Each alien race has a unique ship, with a unique weapon and secondary ability. I feel there is a better way of saying this without using "unique" twice.
- Where the first two games allowed two players to play at the same keyboard, the game includes new multiplayer modes for network, modem, and serial connections. I suggest specifying Star Control 3 in place of the game.
- The combat controls allow more degrees of rotation
than the prior games,with more detailed aiming, steering, and scaling. I think "than the prior games," is a redundancy. - The dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets, instead of the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games. I suggest rewording it to: As opposed to the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games, the dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets.
- @Viridian Bovary: The copy-edits much are appreciated. Good catch on some of the redundancies that definitely felt tedious. I rolled back just one quote, as the operative part of "more than make up for it" is really the "more than" part. I also kept the phrasing of about the dialog screens, as inverting the structure sets it up to talk about all of the art. But those small things aside, let me know if there is anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies for the prose nitpicks and thank you for following those up. Happy to support this for promotion. Well done. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Check grammar in captions
- Don't use fixed px size
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:StarControl3_Solarsystem_View.png needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. Fixed the captions, sizing, alt text, and FUR. Let me know if I missed anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please double-check the Bates caption - still seems like it's missing words. Also alts shouldn't need to be nowiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I went ahead and rephrased it. Hopefully it's clear now. Do you see any other issues? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, still not clear: "their" could refer to Accolade, or to Bates' team, and I'm not sure which. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Gave it another try. Sorry this has gone in circles a bit. Does that make more sense now? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Check-in with coordinators
- @WP:FAC coordinators: Wanted to check-in here. There are 3 general reviews that are supportive, and 1 image review that is neutral-to-supportive. The anniversary for this game is September 24th and the window is starting to close on TFA selections, but I also understand that we need to follow the process until we're sure this is FA quality. Is there a sense of what this article might still need for this nomination to succeed? I can prioritize trying to reach out to editors who are willing to help with the right things. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Query noted. Advice sought. Hang on.
- It needs a source review and I have listed it at requests.
- In terms of obtaining a speedy promotion, another general review, preferably by an experienced reviewer, would help.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Update: the TFA scheduler for September has said that if it is promoted in the next month or so they will run it on the 24th. (You owe me a favour. ;-) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Short Symphony
- Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Aaron Copland's second symphony. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- In anticipation about concerns over the Hilliard dissertation, I have found that he is now a composer and credited as a "scholar of Aaron Copland’s music and life". (See 1 and 2) Also per the thesis' introduction, it appears to be written under the review of Edward Troupin (music professor) and Dr. William Hedges (another professor), among others. Not sure though if this fully satisfies requirements listed at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially since I have not yet found any third party sources citing Hilliard's thesis or publishing in a reviewed journal. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Link20XX
Will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could give me some comments on my peer review, it would be much appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a comment regarding the lead, as a non-expert in this subject, I do not know what "three movements" and "changing meters and syncopated rhythms" mean. Could this be put in simpler terms? Link20XX (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whoops forgot to link those terms when expanding the lead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies on the time, but I am still reading through the article. Everything looks good so far, except for one more WP:JARGON word. Can the word "sextet" be linked or reworded? I have no idea what it means as a non-expert in music. Link20XX (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from buidhe
- Image review: the only issue I'm seeing is that it's not clear from the commons description if the 1962 photograph was actually published under US law (which requires distribution to the public) and it could have been published earlier with a copyright notice. FYI a phD thesis should be ok for WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh thanks, that's a relief on the thesis side of things. As for the image, I'll look into that. I may replace it with a different one. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I couldn't really sort out the copyright notice issue, so I just replaced the image with one from a roughly similar time but uploaded by the author. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I had to nominate that image for deletion. I've checked all the images in the Copeland category and there's one that I feel confident about from a licensing standpoint, and that's Aaron Copland USD Alcalá 1975.jpg With this kind of photograph you can be reasonably confident it wasn't published anywhere else first. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- All right, thanks for the help. I'll use that one then. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I had to nominate that image for deletion. I've checked all the images in the Copeland category and there's one that I feel confident about from a licensing standpoint, and that's Aaron Copland USD Alcalá 1975.jpg With this kind of photograph you can be reasonably confident it wasn't published anywhere else first. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Aza24
Great to see this here, some initial comments below (going to jump around a lot):
- "demonstrates a shift in Copland's style towards polytonality and serialism"—not clear what it's shifting from, persay. My guess what be neoclassicism, but perhaps you have a more succinct qualifier
- I've consulted my sources, and I couldn't say for sure either. Instead of implying a shift, I just said that Copland developed an interest in serialism, and that the symphony incorporated influences from that interest. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see, the new wording is definitely an improvement; however, we might want to make it clear that this interest is a new one, perhaps "the composer's increasing interest" or "the composer's emerging interest"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see, the new wording is definitely an improvement; however, we might want to make it clear that this interest is a new one, perhaps "the composer's increasing interest" or "the composer's emerging interest"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've consulted my sources, and I couldn't say for sure either. Instead of implying a shift, I just said that Copland developed an interest in serialism, and that the symphony incorporated influences from that interest. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- In order to sum up the article fully, I would include something brief about the nature of the ensemble size (e.g. to sum up the instrumentation section). It seems somewhat standard forces; besides the addition of heckelphone and piano as well as absence of low brass
- Done GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "past travels", surely "travels" alone means the same thing
- Done GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would add a brief snippet about recordings to the lead. Maybe something like "The work has been recorded a few times, including two with Copland conducting"
- Done GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will admit, I'm a bit confused by Copland's quote on percussion; is the irony that he did use percussion by using piano, or is he getting at something else? Perhaps a little context to clarify, but maybe this is just me
- I'm kind of confused as well; it's not too clear in the thesis. I'll omit for now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- But alas, it would be really nice to see any amount of actual music in the article. Any theme (well, preferably multiple); is this something you have a way of doing? If you know what you'd include, I could figure out something in Finale myself if it's any assistance
- Yeah, I've never really figured out how to properly do this on Wikimedia Commons (even uploading paintings for me is kind of confusing, with the licensing and all that). I guess the first few bars of each movement would do fine, since that's what most other articles do. Besides that, I don't have anything else in mind. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- This feels like a must; I'm happy to assist—if you can give me some exact measure numbers and movement requests I'll see what I can do... Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for offering to help. I was going to name the measure numbers, but only now did I realize that since this was an orchestral piece, it wouldn't be as easy as dropping measure numbers. I went ahead with just doing it myself based on Hilliard's analysis. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- This feels like a must; I'm happy to assist—if you can give me some exact measure numbers and movement requests I'll see what I can do... Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've never really figured out how to properly do this on Wikimedia Commons (even uploading paintings for me is kind of confusing, with the licensing and all that). I guess the first few bars of each movement would do fine, since that's what most other articles do. Besides that, I don't have anything else in mind. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- We should give some translations somewhere for the Italian tempos
- I wiktionary linked the translations (I'm assuming that those who are willing to read this far either a. don't need the translations or b. are willing to click on the links as for other music terms) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the link on "Copland Conducts Copland (MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records makes sense, it seems misleading. Perhaps link just the "(MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records or maybe the earlier "Columbia" instead
- Done GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- If that is truly a complete discography, then I struggle to rationale its need for a separate article. Regardless though, it should be included that Copland recorded again with the LSO and some of the more notable orchestras could be briefly mentioned, perhaps the SFS and NBC? I presume some of the chamber groups were using the chamber version?—might be notable as well.
- I kept the two articles separate so that the cite styles could remain the same (this main article uses exclusively short refs, which I'm not sure how to apply for the All Music links). Also, the 1991 recording is likely not a second performance (Copland died in 1990) but rather a re-release of the 1969 recording (can't tell though, since I don't have access to it). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The performance of the symphony in the recording" is somewhat clunky, is their a way to smooth this out, perhaps combining with the earlier sentence (maybe with a semi colon?)
- Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, given his earlier association with the work I would definitely add that Stokowski recorded it, though I'm not sure when, as I don't know that he did so 30 years after his death like the discography suggests! Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the discography gives the release date of the record only, not the recording/performance date. I'll see if I can find an earlier date (hopefully original edition). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: Thanks for your thoughtful review! I tried to meet these points as best I could; please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking good, definitely leaning towards support. I left some responses to a few things; I suspect that the "[discog 3]" and such in the recordings is meant to be "Allmusic #"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Uh, for AllMusic urls, I just went with a separate ref group called "discog" to keep them separate from the short refs. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking good, definitely leaning towards support. I left some responses to a few things; I suspect that the "[discog 3]" and such in the recordings is meant to be "Allmusic #"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
Music examples: the norm for FAs about concert works is that they have illustrative excerpts from the printed score, sound clips, or both. I imagine getting usable sound clips would be difficult, but you can certainly use small extracts from the printed score. Otherwise, no complaints about the musical analysis, which is clear and as jargon-free as such things ever can be if they are to be thorough.
A few points on the prose:
- Copland later arranged the symphony as a sextet to make it more playable – does this mean making it available for more performances?
- Sort of, I specified that he made it less difficult to play. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Others agreed with Copland's assessment, however – this is the first of nine "howevers" in the text. All nine could advantageously be removed. None of them add anything useful and they clutter the prose.
- I disagree that "none of them add anything useful", since they are used to clarify otherwise contrasting/conflicting statements and improve logical flow. I did cut some of them out where they did appear unnecessary, reducing the total down to 4 "however"s spread roughly evenly over the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- While staying at the Yaddo estate – is the location of any relevance?
- I mean, where Copland composed the piece should be included wherever possible. It does not have any explicit connection to anything else in the article, but it's a fact that should still be included I feel (like the exact date of the work's premiere for example). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- in the fall of 1932 – the manual of style bids us avoid dating events by reference to the season, as our readers in the southern hemisphere have their seasons the other way about. If you have a month, excellent, otherwise "towards the end of" would perhaps be better than "in the fall of". (I think the mention of "the fall season", later on is fair enough.)
- My source only specifies as far as "fall of 1932". I don't think "towards the end of" would be better than "in the fall of", however, since readers probably have an even greater variation in what they consider "towards the end of" a year to be (some may consider it to be just the month of December, or even Christmas-time, which isn't even fall). Context here that Copland is in Mexico should be enough for all readers (regardless of hemisphere) to judge what time/month period we're referring to. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- declined to premiere … agreed to conduct the work's world premiere… It premiered in Mexico City – three premieres in a row. A bit of a variety would be welcome.
- Changed "premiered in Mexico City" to "was first performed in Mexico City". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Koussevitzky allegedly replied "Non ce n'est pas trop difficile, c'est impossible!" – seems surprising: why would Koussevitzky, who was Russian, speak to Copland in French?
- Koussevitzky was Russian-born, but lived/worked most of his life elsewhere (e.g. he spent considerable time in France). "Serge" is actually the French-language spelling of "Sergei", so I wouldn't be surprised if he could speak French (I couldn't actually find a source explicitly saying so, though). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- and he led the NBC Symphony Orchestra – I'd be careful with "led": the orchestral player called the concertmaster in the US is called the leader in Australia, Britain and elsewhere.
- Changed "led" to "conducted". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Copland, possibly under a suggestion by Bernstein – curious choice of preposition.
- Changed to "possibly from a suggestion by Bernstein". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The musicologist Bryan R. Simms believed – the past tense for "believed" might be taken to imply that Mr Simms no longer believes it.
- We can't say for sure, since the source was written ~15 years ago. My standard is to use past tense for any beliefs/written statements on a piece, regardless of whether the author is alive or not. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- audience, he claimed that the Short Symphony revealed the "genius" of Stravinsky – I'd be cautious about "claimed": when used about a statement it has distinct overtones of disbelief or at least suspicion.
- Changed "claimed" to "assessed" (though I'm sure to virtually all people, a critic deeming Copland to be an "inadequate" composer is a very questionable judgement) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the symphony was lauded by others. – does "nevertheless" add anything useful here?
- Nope, removed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Carlos Chávez, the work's dedicatee and premiere conductor – you've already told us that.
- Removed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The recording's performance was delivered by Copland and the London Symphony Orchestra – a strange way of putting it. Something less convoluted such as "Copland conducted the London Symphony Orchestra" might be preferable.
- Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are my few comments on the drafting. As to the content I think the article is clear, balanced, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, and sensibly laid out. With a bit of polishing of the prose and a few music examples this certainly has the potential for FA in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the points you have laid out so far, and please feel free to follow up. :) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- "the fast first and third movements are in sonata-allegro form" - the text agrees on the first, but not the third
- "influences from his travels to Germany and Mexico" - text supports the latter but not the former
- Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
- Is there a reason discography refs were separated from the others?
- The first two footnotes need citations
- FN25 should use 'pp'
- Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
- Copland 1955: the formatting here is confused. Are you citing the work itself, or the record on the website? If the former, the archive should be credited with
|via=
if at all; if the latter, Boosey & Hawkes should not be included. Similar formatting concerns around Hilliard. - Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Batman: A Death in the Family
"A Death in the Family" is one of the most infamous comic book stories ever released by a major publisher. When DC Comics realized that Jason Todd, who had replaced Dick Grayson as Batman's sidekick Robin in 1983, was an obnoxious little snot who many fans hated, it made what at the time was an unprecedented decision—the fans could decide if he would die or not. They voted to off the little punk, and sure enough, this story—by The Infinity Gauntlet writer Jim Starlin and veteran artist Jim Aparo—saw the Joker beat Todd to a pulp with a crowbar before blowing him up. "A Death in the Family" left a massive impact on future Batman stories and, to this day, Batman's failure to save his adopted son remains one of the most shocking and disturbing moments in his 80-year history.
Now this was an article I've been meaning to tackle for a long time. I made an attempt in early 2018 when I was still relatively inexperienced, but finally got around to giving it a thorough treatment throughout the last month. This article is probably the most comprehensive resource on this subject on the entire internet, spanning from its background and development to its legacy and influence on Batman media. I hope you enjoy it! JOEBRO64 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- File:The_Death_of_Jason_Todd.jpg: is this the cover or interior artwork? The FUR is contradictory
- File:Death_of_Robin_Alt.jpeg: what was the date of first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all points. JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- My question on the last point was the first publication - I know it was published in 2020, but that source seems to indicate it had been published before that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I believe that particular page has been floating around on the internet for a while prior to its formal unveiling. The one that was floating around doesn't have the DC logo watermark though, which this one does. I can upload the non-watermarked scan if I can pinpoint its publication date if that sounds good. JOEBRO64 01:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is it unwatermarked because it was unauthorized? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the publication history here... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I believe that particular page has been floating around on the internet for a while prior to its formal unveiling. The one that was floating around doesn't have the DC logo watermark though, which this one does. I can upload the non-watermarked scan if I can pinpoint its publication date if that sounds good. JOEBRO64 01:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- My question on the last point was the first publication - I know it was published in 2020, but that source seems to indicate it had been published before that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all points. JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
- For the caption in the infobox image, I do not think it should have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
- 900 numbers is linked more than once in the article.
- I do not think Dick Grayson should be linked in the "Synopsis" section as he is already linked in an earlier section. I have the same comment for Superman.
- I have a question about this part,
when characters such as Phoenix and Elektra were killed
. It has been a while since I read "The Dark Phoenix Saga", but I thought it was more so Jean Grey's death not the Phoenix?- I actually wouldn't know because I've never read the Phoenix Saga! However, the link does go to Grey's article already. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I agree that since the link already directs to the Grey article, it should be fine as it currently stands. I really enjoy The Dark Phoenix Saga and weirdly enough, I actually just bought a super cheap copy of it at a library book store. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I actually wouldn't know because I've never read the Phoenix Saga! However, the link does go to Grey's article already. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- For this part,
a damaged Robin suit on display in the Batcave
, would it be beneficial to link Batcave? I do not think it is linked earlier.- Batcomputer, which is linked earlier in the article, redirects to Batcave. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think words should be in all caps in the citation titles. See citations 3, 44, and 48 for examples of this.
- There is an issue with the "Pearson & Uricchio 1991" citations in that the links in the "References" section do not link down to the "Bibliography" section.
- I would link Looper in the citations.
I hope my review is helpful. TarkusAB has covered a lot of points in their review below and I have tried to not overlap with that. Once all my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. You have done a wonderful job with the article and it was a very engaging read. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from TarkusAB
I just happen to have the next week off so I should have time to do this. Actually just going to do the review now.
[The fans] did hate him. I don't know if it was fan craziness...
I think maybe this quote would work better in a quote box to the right, as it is pretty long, and also summarizes the background quite well.- Note sure where the AIDS thing plays in. In the following sentence, it says Starlin filled the suggestion box with papers saying to kill off Todd. Was the intent to kill him off from AIDS? It's not clear.
- Yeah the idea was to kill off a DC character using AIDS for AIDS education (a respectful way to handle the topic, amirite?). I've reworded the sentence to say "... requested that writers submit suggestions for characters to kill off from AIDS." If this still needs work in your view just let me know. JOEBRO64 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Starlin wrote scripts for a six-part story, and the decision was made to publish the first two parts in a single issue and the next two parts in the following issue to speed up the story because of the reader participation angle.
I was a little confused reading this, maybe because I'm not familiar with comics very much. Are "parts" normally not published together, meaning the original intent was to publish across six issues? Was it still in six parts or were the parts combined? Was this an unusual practice? Maybe this could be made a little more clear (without getting much more wordy).- Comic book stories are usually serialized a part per issue. In this case, DC decided to publish four parts (which would've been four issues normally) in double-sized issues. I've reworded it to: "Starlin wrote scripts for a six-issue story, and the decision was made to combine the first four across two issues..." Hopefully this is clearer. JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the same phrase, the part "because of the reader participation angle"...I'm not understanding why they would need to rush the story because of the audience participation. Did the 900 numbers cost a lot of money and they wanted to get it done ASAP to cut the lines?
- O'Neil's exact quote on the matter is: "The whole idea was reader participation, so speeding up the story-telling process by publishing double-issues seemed in the spirit of it all." My interpretation of this is that the Batman team felt like the story needed to be faster since fans were participating. I've reworded it to: "... to speed up the story because fans were participating." JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- When you mentioned the numbers on the backcover, I would mention that specific times on when to call were also printed. The first time you mentioned the numbers on the back, I assumed they were open for a month, or whatever the timing for an issue was. When I came across the line saying the lines were only open for 35 hours, I felt confused, like they only opted to get a small sampling of callers. Only when I saw the image of the back cover online, did I understand.
"the letters pages broke out into debate" over whether...
By "letters pages", I assume you mean pages in the comics where they publish letters sent in by fans? It's kind of a strange term that I had to think about for a second. Maybe say:fan letters published in the comic "broke out into debate" over whether...
- The quote is referring to comic book letter columns, which are (or were, I don't know if publishers still do it) where the editors published and responded to letters from fans. I've changed it to say "the Batman letter column "broke out into debate" over whether Todd should live or die", with the link. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the same sentence above, am I understanding right that upon the announcement of the storyline, fans already understood that the nature of the storyline was Robin's death, and began debating from that? I'm just thinking if they had to have some previous knowledge, but I don't know how they would. They didn't know he was at death's doorstep until 427, and the next issue he died, so these fan letters would not have much opportunity to debate.
- Well, here's the thing that the source doesn't mention: DC announced the story a few months in advance, after The Killing Joke came out (The Killing Joke came out in March or May if I'm not mistaken). They originally didn't reveal that it was Todd who was in danger when they announced the story, fans at the time just immediately figured out that it was him. It didn't become official that it was going to be about Robin when Batman #426 was published that August. I hope this clears it up, I'm fine with scrubbing the sentence altogether, or adding the release date of The Killing Joke so it becomes clear it was some time in advance. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Not required, but may be better to say: ...the Batman letter column immediately concluded the storyline concerned Todd and "broke out into debate" over... Which brings the clarity that fans concluded he was the subject by themselves, and brings the nuance that perhaps they deep down expected/wanted him to be the subject. But the writing here is not terribly misleading, and I'm not sure what the source says exactly, so I'll leave that to you to decide. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, here's the thing that the source doesn't mention: DC announced the story a few months in advance, after The Killing Joke came out (The Killing Joke came out in March or May if I'm not mistaken). They originally didn't reveal that it was Todd who was in danger when they announced the story, fans at the time just immediately figured out that it was him. It didn't become official that it was going to be about Robin when Batman #426 was published that August. I hope this clears it up, I'm fine with scrubbing the sentence altogether, or adding the release date of The Killing Joke so it becomes clear it was some time in advance. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Others lamented how bloodthirsty comic book readers had become.
Maybe I'm reading too much into "had become", but were there other cases at the time of readers wanting character deaths in their comics?- I've changed it to "were", because I can see how this can be a bit confusing if you're not familiar with comics history. Basically, the death of Robin came early during the Modern Age of Comic Books, a time when it was really cool and trendy to have your comic as brutally bloody and violent as possible. Weldon mentions in his book that upon hearing that Robin could be killed, many fans jumped at the opportunity because they wanted the mainstream Batman comics to be as savage and adult as The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now towards the end of the article, I'm getting the impression that Todd is a child, or at least was in this storyline. Is that mentioned earlier, and did I just miss it? I think his age (or at least the fact that he's a teen/child) should be mentioned in the Background section if that is the case, as it brings a fascinating spin.
- Shouldn't the fact that Todd was brought back to life as the Red Hood be in the lead? Seems important
Really, really great read. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB: responded to all points. Thank you for taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. You put so much work into these articles, I knew it would be a good read. The only comic I was ever subscribed to was the Sonic Archie series when I was young, and those were meh. Reading about mature comics like this, I can see how good comic book writers and artists can really push the boundaries of artistic expression, and it gives me an appreciation for the medium I didn't have before. All the fixes you made above were satisfactory and cleared up any confusion I had. I made one recommendation above, but it's minor. I support this article for promotion! TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Broken citations
There is a problem with citations 1 and 27, "Pearson, Roberta E.; Uricchio, William, eds. (1991). The Many Lives of The Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media. London: BFI Publishing. pp. 18–32. ISBN 0415903475. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPearson_Uricchio1991." Graham Beards (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Graham Beards: all fixed. I'd accidentally mistyped the ref while writing. JOEBRO64 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would have fixed it for you, but I couldn't find the problem.-Graham Beards (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from indopug
- Throughout this article, you mainly talk about "A Death in the Family" and rarely about Batman: A Death in the Family—and rightly so. But the article title should reflect this; I recommend moving the article to A Death in the Family (Batman) (or whatever is appropriate). I also feel "collected in trade paperback form as Batman: A Death in the Family" should be relegated from the first sentence to the fourth paragraph of the lead. The collected TPB is simply not very important compared to that of the story of Batman #426–429.
- I definitely agree with this. Do you think A Death in the Family (comics) would be a suitable move? A Death in the Family (Batman) could definitely work, but there is no other comic book storyline with the same title, so I don't think we'd need to be as specific (and "(comics)" is more standard across WP). I would suggest moving to A Death in the Family but the novel is probably more notable. JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point of the sentences "Both issues bore a cover date of December 1988" and "The last two issues bore January 1989 cover dates". They're not sourced to independent sources either, rather the comics themselves.
- I've removed them. I had included the cover dates as I thought it'd be helpful, since the cover dates are always different from the actual publication dates, but looking at it now I don't think it's entirely necessary JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You should trim the Miller quote to avoid the "most cynical" repetition.
- "Raspler was chastised by future DC president Paul Levitz"—he became president over a decade later. I think he should be introduced with his then title (otherwise it seems like a much bigger deal than it was).
- "a scene in which Wayne beat the Joker with a crowbar"—I wonder if you should explicitly explain that this was a reference/reversal of what happened in ADITF?
- While you say "DC editors took the lessons they learned from the controversy and used media coverage for publicity when killing off major characters in the future" in general, shouldn't you give Superman's death (and maybe even the Knightfall storyline) as specific examples of this?
more to come...—indopug (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Indopug: I've responded above. Thank you for taking the time to take a look! JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Manon Melis
- Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I nominate another football article. For nine years Manon Melis was the all-time top scorer for her country's national women's football team. She retired from professional football just before her national team won their first and only tournament in 2017. Thanks to Sportsfan77777 (GA), ChrisTheDude (PR), and Twofingered Typist (copy-edit) the article is in a much better state, but I'm sure there is still room for improvement. I welcome your feedback. Thanks for taking a look. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria! Edwininlondon (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments
- I PRed this, so doubt I will pick up much, but here goes.......
- "suggested the talented young Melis to play with" =>"suggested that the talented young Melis play with"
- "A girl playing football was still unusual at the time" - is this really true? You already said that she had previously played for the girls' team, so there was clearly a structure for girls' football, which would mean that a girl playing football was hardly unusual. Do you mean that a girl playing for a boys' team was unusual?
- I guess it's all relative. Say a club with 15 boys' teams would just about be able to form 1 girls' team. Or in another way (pardon my guessing numbers here for mid 1990s): 75 out of 100 boys played at a club versus 5 out of a 100 girls. Which is low compared to current levels, but high compared to 1970s and 1980s ... The source says unusual. Other sources also mention unusual. Would you like to modify it with "somewhat"? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense. In that case maybe say "Girls playing football was still somewhat unusual at the time"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I guess it's all relative. Say a club with 15 boys' teams would just about be able to form 1 girls' team. Or in another way (pardon my guessing numbers here for mid 1990s): 75 out of 100 boys played at a club versus 5 out of a 100 girls. Which is low compared to current levels, but high compared to 1970s and 1980s ... The source says unusual. Other sources also mention unusual. Would you like to modify it with "somewhat"? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- "this offer meant she also had to find other work" => "this offer meant that she would also have to find other work"
- Whoops, got to cut and run - will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further comments
- "Former Brazilian football player Pelé handed out the award to Marta" - seems a bit irrelevant to Melis's career
- I removed Pele. It now reads: "but she did not win; Marta did"
- "ahead of the 2012 season start in April" => "ahead of the 2012 season starting in April"
- "joining Mittag on attack" => "joining Mittag in attack"
- "they booked a 3–2 win" => "they achieved a 3–2 win"
- First sentence of the Kopparbergs section has both a comma and a full stop at the end
- "Having represented the Netherlands on youth teams" => "Having represented the Netherlands at youth levels"
- "Japan soon scored on the other side of the pitch" => "Japan soon scored at the other end of the pitch"
- "While it was unusual for her as a girl in the 1990s to play football" - see above
- I inserted somewhat
- "Having built a hierarchy of nine women teams" => "Having built a hierarchy of nine women's teams"
- "Melis jumps...." caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
- Is it not a full sentence? It's got a verb, a subject. What is missing?
- Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I have addressed all your other points, just the caption is unresolved I think. Thanks for taking the effort to review it again, after your thorough peer review. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Cullen House
- Nominator(s): Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a historic building in Scotland, built around 1600 and substantially enlarged and remodelled several times in its history, and family seat to the Earls of Seafield. I started it back in 2019 as a userspace draft, but didn't move it into mainspace until April 2020 and got it up to GA. I've done a bit more work on it this year, and have taken it through peer review - I think it's about as good as I can make it now, so thought I'd see whether it's up to FA standards. Thanks in advance for any reviews. Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks good. The one thing I would recommend, if possible, is finding a better quality image of the house to use as the lead image. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Buidhe. I've searched for licensed images on commons and on geograph.org, but have drawn a blank. Do you know any other good places to turn to? Girth Summit (blether) 07:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I had a little go at the image, as I can't travel there and take a new photo. I've enlarged, sharpened, brightened and straightened it a little (it won't take much intervention without looking terrible). The changes take a while to filter through but it you are sure you are seeing the new version you may prefer it. If you hate it please revert it over at Commons and you can get the original back. Please note that this is not meant to be permanent – just a stopgap to help out until a seriously better image can be found. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Buidhe. I've searched for licensed images on commons and on geograph.org, but have drawn a blank. Do you know any other good places to turn to? Girth Summit (blether) 07:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Minor moans about repetition – and I am not sure how or whether they can be fixed! Don't you hate people who do this? Sorry! Firstly there's a little patch of repetition of
Baronialized
, three in a row I think, and a little later we sayseparately designated as a Category A listed building
or words to that effect several times in a row. I absolutely get it that these are correct and descriptive, and I am not arguing with their inclusion. I am just saying I found it slightly inelegant to keep hearing it. I am not even sure why, and, as I say, I know it is hugely annoying to bring a problem with no suggested solution. I once had a boss who hated that so much, he'd be spitting feathers right now. Anyway, it may not be fixable and may not be perceived as a problem by anyone else, and I am perfectly happy to be told to stfu or some similarly polite formula. I just wanted to mention it, and now I have! Best to all DBaK (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)- Thanks DBaK - I take the point about the repetitive language. I've reworded some of the Category A stuff, so hopefully that's a bit better. I'm not sure what to do about 'Baronialized' - the only ways I can think of rewording without losing meaning end up being quite wordy, e.g. 'remodelled in the Baronial style', or similar. The sources I'm using repeat that word more than I do! I'll see if anything comes to me; happy to hear suggestions if anyone has any. Girth Summit (blether) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I like the Cat A improvements – it's just an easier read. I can see that
Baronialized
is a problem, and does need to be said. Maybe there's no fix and it should simply stay as is. If I suddenly see a brilliant way forward, I will certainly suggest it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I like the Cat A improvements – it's just an easier read. I can see that
- Thanks DBaK - I take the point about the repetitive language. I've reworded some of the Category A stuff, so hopefully that's a bit better. I'm not sure what to do about 'Baronialized' - the only ways I can think of rewording without losing meaning end up being quite wordy, e.g. 'remodelled in the Baronial style', or similar. The sources I'm using repeat that word more than I do! I'll see if anything comes to me; happy to hear suggestions if anyone has any. Girth Summit (blether) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
I will recuse and review this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOXREF: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere".
- Good point, gone.
- "The house has been extended and remodelled several times since 1602". Do we need "since 1602"?
- No, gone
- The lead seems very long. And four paragraphs? See MOS:LEADLENGTH, which suggests "Two or three paragraphs" for articles of "15,000–30,000 characters". This one is 16,000, barely above the "One or two paragraphs" level; that 16k includes the lengthy lead, so an argument could be made that the lead should be one or two paragraphs.
- Fair point. I've trimmed some text, and merged P1 and P2. Any better, or do you think more needs to go?
- It still seems long to me, but it just about sneaks under what I would consider the maximum allowable.
- Link laird.
- linked
- The lead says "The house was originally built between 1600 and 1602" but I can't find that in the article.
- I can't find where 1602 was coming from. Several sources say that 20 March 1600 was when work was started; something I've read must have given a 1602 completion date, but I'm not now seeing it, so I've removed it from the lead.
- " Alexander McGill and James Smith". Architects? Could we be told?
- (I sort of thought that was implicit from the fact that they were being asked to draw up plans for a remodelling, and they were linked.) Now clarified.
- But you have "Thomas White, a landscape architect from Nottinghamshire, drew up plans for new and extensive landscaped gardens".
- True, but I couldn't provide a wikilink for him.
- But you have "Thomas White, a landscape architect from Nottinghamshire, drew up plans for new and extensive landscaped gardens".
- (I sort of thought that was implicit from the fact that they were being asked to draw up plans for a remodelling, and they were linked.) Now clarified.
- MOS:FORCELINK "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
- "carrying off what they could and destroying what could not be easily transported". Optional: avoid "could" twice in five words?
- reworded
- "James and John Adam ". Who were?
- ("Who is Gazza?") Clarified
- "and built the large bow window" → 'including building the large bow window' maybe?
- Yes, better, changed.
- "these were not carried out". "these" → 'this'.
- better, changed
- "Detailed records survive showing the layout of the house's gardens in 1760, showing walled courts". "showing ... showing".
- reworded
- "The house's current Baronial Revival appearance". Link Baronial Revival at this first mention.
- linked
- "reputed" occurs four times. Some synonyms?
- Only one now.
- "when it was designated a Category A listed building". I think this is worthy of a separate sentence.
- I have given moved things around a bit, see what you think.
- Looks good.
- Link capitals.
- Done - hope nobody brings up MOS:SOB
- "Baronialized". Why the upper case initial letter?
- I'm not wedded to it, but it is the style used in most (but not all) of my sources. I've checked a ample of six books on my shelf (all by British academics, in reputable publishers): two books (both 20th C) use lower case, four books (all 21st C) use capitals. I recognise that the Wikipedia house style leans towards lower case however, so will change it if you or other reviewers think it should be lower case.
- I have searched and failed to find anything in the MOS which allows the capitalisation to remain. Admittedly MoS is a warren, so feel free to relook.
- I will change if anyone wants me to - I have no axe to grind on capitals. Just to explain the approach I took, most sources I have read treat Scottish Baronial, or Scotch Baronial, as a proper name for a particular architectural style (in the same way they might treat Gothic): they capitalise it. When talking about old buildings that were modified in the 19th C to conform with this new aesthetic, most sources I have read treat the past-tenseverb 'Baronialized' as being derived from a proper name by capitalising it. I have followed that style, as many of our articles to with the verb 'Gothicised' (seek and ye shall find). Please read this as being intended to be explanatory, rather than persuasive - if anyone asks that I change it, I'll be happy to. My instinct would be not to capitalise, I'm following the sources rather than my own view of 'proper writing' here.
- I have searched and failed to find anything in the MOS which allows the capitalisation to remain. Admittedly MoS is a warren, so feel free to relook.
- I'm not wedded to it, but it is the style used in most (but not all) of my sources. I've checked a ample of six books on my shelf (all by British academics, in reputable publishers): two books (both 20th C) use lower case, four books (all 21st C) use capitals. I recognise that the Wikipedia house style leans towards lower case however, so will change it if you or other reviewers think it should be lower case.
- The MoS agrees that "Eponyms are capitalized". So, yes, Gothicised, cus of the Goths. Likewise Corinthian. Georgian. Jacobean. And so on. But not Baronial. Er, I am assuming that the style was not named after someone called "Baron"?
- No, definitely not named for a person. I invoked 'Gothicised' as an example of a proper noun retaining its capital when turned into a verb. The majority of the best sources I have read on the subject - by that, I mean work by academics either about specific buildings, or about Scottish architecture in general - treat Scottish Baronial as a proper name and consistently capitalise both words; when they refer to nineteenth-century modifications of older buildings to conform to the fashion of the time, the majority also capitalise the verb. The MOS tells us that we only capitalise "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". My own small review shows a 4:2 majority, which is a majority, however I accept that it is perhaps not substantial enough to overcome the general guidance that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". There are scholars who do not capitalise it, and so it is probably not strictly necessary - I will therefore bow to your concerns, and make it lower case.
- By no means definitive, but indicative and interesting - [4]
- Also interesting: Scottish Baronial. Then we get into the classic quantitative versus qualitative NGram discussion (how many of these results are coming from books written by academics, as opposed to general guidebooks and the like?), which is a battle I don't feel like fighting. I'm content to go with the 'use lower case where you can' spirit of the MOS.
- Yes, it is. And yes, no way of extracting RSs from the noise; which is why I prefaced with "By no means definitive, but indicative". Still, as you said, a lack of evidence of overwhelming use of upper case.
- Also interesting: Scottish Baronial. Then we get into the classic quantitative versus qualitative NGram discussion (how many of these results are coming from books written by academics, as opposed to general guidebooks and the like?), which is a battle I don't feel like fighting. I'm content to go with the 'use lower case where you can' spirit of the MOS.
- By no means definitive, but indicative and interesting - [4]
- No, definitely not named for a person. I invoked 'Gothicised' as an example of a proper noun retaining its capital when turned into a verb. The majority of the best sources I have read on the subject - by that, I mean work by academics either about specific buildings, or about Scottish architecture in general - treat Scottish Baronial as a proper name and consistently capitalise both words; when they refer to nineteenth-century modifications of older buildings to conform to the fashion of the time, the majority also capitalise the verb. The MOS tells us that we only capitalise "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". My own small review shows a 4:2 majority, which is a majority, however I accept that it is perhaps not substantial enough to overcome the general guidance that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". There are scholars who do not capitalise it, and so it is probably not strictly necessary - I will therefore bow to your concerns, and make it lower case.
- The MoS agrees that "Eponyms are capitalized". So, yes, Gothicised, cus of the Goths. Likewise Corinthian. Georgian. Jacobean. And so on. But not Baronial. Er, I am assuming that the style was not named after someone called "Baron"?
- "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?
- "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?
- fixed
Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Gog the Mild - as ever, a good eye for detail. Please see above, I've addressed almost everything, just the question of capitalisation remains. Girth Summit (blether) 16:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- That all looks good. Supporting, but I shall keep an eye on the B/b thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support gratefully accepted, Gog the Mild - a couple of more comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- B/b thing resolved, see comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 08:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support gratefully accepted, Gog the Mild - a couple of more comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- That all looks good. Supporting, but I shall keep an eye on the B/b thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lead says that it was in "some disrepair", while the body says that it was "quite dilapidated". Maybe its just me, but the latter seems to imply a greater degree of damage than the former
- I guess I was trying to avoid repetitive language, but I agree that you're right that they have slightly different meanings, and they're sufficiently far apart in the article not to have to worry about repetition. The source says 'dilapidated', so I've changed it to that in the lead.
- In the lead, you identify Kit Martin as a specialist in saving old buildings, recommend introducing him as that in the body as well
- Introduced, with a little bit of moving things around.
- "The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as William Adam" - Did William Adam work on the house? This is what this in the lead implies, but the body only mentions him working on the bridge on the grounds
- You've got me Adam senior only worked on the bridge, not the house. Gone.
- Do we know the approximate dimensions of the building? It seems a bit odd for a FAC about a building to not really state how large the structure is
- This is frustrating. I can measure off an areal photograph on Google maps, which tells me that each of the main wings is about 60 metres in length, but that's OR off a dubious source. None of the sources I've been able to lay hands on actually give any dimensions. Canmore tells me that there are plans and elevations of the building, made in 1930-31, stored at the National Library of Scotland in special collections, but those aren't digitised and I think I'd need to recruit a friendly academic to go and access that stuff for me. Would this be a showstopper?
- Image licensing looks fine
- Sources all appear to be reliable
Very good work; not much for me to pick on here. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Hog Farm - thanks for the review, much appreciated. Comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 14:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Venicescapes
Thank you for the invitation. I'll work through this slowly.
Infobox
1. The coordinates clutter the infobox, and I would delete them. They’re already present above. The map is sufficient to place the house in context geographically.
- I am not an expert on templates, so perhaps there is a more elegant way to do this, but the coordinates are not duplicated anywhere. The only place they appear is in the infobox template: their presence there is what determines the location of the pushpin in the map, and it also appears to cause the coordinates to appear at the top-right of the article. That seems to be the way that infoboxes work - I'm not aware of a way to do this differently?
2. Consider using a series of breaks so that the name of each architect/builder stands on its own line. In this case, delete and before the final name.
- Done
3. I would be more telegraphic in the infobox. Consider: Architectural style: Scottish Baronial Revival (older features remain)
- Done
4. Consider embedding a child template for Various architects to avoid Various, including. I think it would make the Infobox look cleaner. This could also be Contributing architects.Venicescapes (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes - please look at what I've done with the list of architects now, is this better, or do you still think a child template would help?
5. You link to Scottish Baronial Revival, which according to the article is a nineteenth century style. Since the house is in the original style on which the revival is based, would this be better: Renaissance_in_Scotland#Architecture? In this case, you might want to insert a See also link to Scottish Baronial Architecture at the beginnning of the architecture section.Venicescapes (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, the house was originally built in the original authentic style, but it was massively extended in the 18th century, and the additions then were in more of a Georgian style. Bryce's 19th-century work on the building attempted to reconcile the competing styles, and bring the overall look into the then-fashionable Scottish Baronial style, which is how all the sources I've looked at describe its current appearance.
- Infobox is okay.Venicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Lead
First paragraph: I would delete now divided into fourteen separate dwellings (it detracts from the importance of the house as the seat of the family and is covered in the third paragraph). The sentence It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. should probably be moved to after Scotland. It concerns the family, and it interrupts the history of the building of the house in its present location.
Result: Cullen House is a large house about 1 kilometre (0.6 mi) south west of the coastal town of Cullen in Moray, Scotland. It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. Building work started on the house in 1600, incorporating some of the stonework of an earlier building on the site. It has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects...
- Done
Second paragraph: I would delete when the incumbent Countess was forced to pay a large ransom to prevent it from being burned down. The information is covered in the main part of the article. The stated purpose of the paragraph is to mention the two times the house was captured.
- Done
Third paragraph: You have two instances with compound predicates that are separated from their subjects by commas. There are various solutions. Consider:
Martin worked with the local architect Douglas Forrest to convert the house into fourteen individual dwellings, retaining much of the original interior of the building.
The house was badly damaged by fire in 1987, after which it underwent an extensive programme of restoration that lasted until 1989.
- Both done
Perhaps some clarification is needed here: She did not use it as her primary residence, nor did Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it on his mother's death in 1969.
Was this the first time that the house was not the primary residence? If so, consider, Unlike previous members of the family (or something similar), she did not use...
- I can't say for certain. Certainly, this is the first time I came across sources commenting upon the fact that it the current owner wasn't living there most of the time. My guess would be that the previous owners spent a substantial amount of their time away as well - it would have been normal for them to have spent quite a bit of time Edinburgh and/or London on business. Nobody saw fit to comment upon it though, whereas there were quite a number of sources from the first half of the 20th C commenting on how much little time the Countess actually spent in Cullen. So, I'm confident about what I've written, but I'm not sure that I have any more to say about the previous owners.
It seems that Ian was Nina's son, but it is not stated. Consider: ... nor did her son Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it upon his mother's death in 1969.
- Done
- A few final touches to the lead.Venicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982.
- Since the relative clause is a little long, I would insert it before remained: ...Seafield, and it remained in their family...
- The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as James and John Adam, and David Bryce.
- Delete comma after times. Also after Adam (you could also do: James Adam, John Adam and David Bryce).
- It has been described by the architectural historian Charles McKean as "one of the grandest houses in Scotland", and is designated a Category A listed building.
- Delete comma after Scotland (it separates the second predicate from its subject)
Images
On my screen, the images pile up with the info box on the right. Consider placing the two images of the arms (they’re closely related) into a multiple image box, perhaps positioned on the left. Venicescapes (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've put them into a multiple image box; I tried it out on the left, but it looked awkward to my eye, and I couldn't find a way to wrap the text nicely - what do you think about having it on the right.
- Images are okayVenicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
History
Initial construction
I had to read the first paragraph multiple times.
Consider beginning with: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle.
- Done
Can you give a sense of the direction and distance between Findlater Castle and Cullen House? I’m not clear if Cullen House is in addition to, or in substitution of, Findlater Castle.
- I've added a bit on this, but I should confess that this is a little bit of OR based on measuring the distance off a map. I think it's still verifiable though, any decent map of the area would show both structures.
Their parish church had traditionally been at Fordyce, but in 1482 the Ogilvies were granted the lands of Findochty and Seafield. By 1543 they had changed their patronage to Cullen Old Church,[1] which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.
Most of my confusion came from these two sentences. The phrase concerning the lands of Findochty and Seafield is wedged between two phrases that talk about church patronage. Assuming that I understand correctly, consider: The lands of Findochty and Seafield were granted to the family in 1482, and by 1543 they had changed their patronage from their traditional parish church at Fordyce to Cullen Old Church, which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.
- Reworked in-line with your suggestions.
Buildings from around this time, which served as accommodation for the church's canons, stood on the site of the current house.
Were these buildings constructed by the family?
- Almost certainly, since they were the patrons of the church; my sources aren't explicit about those buildings though, and it's not impossible that they predated the Ogilvie's patronage of the church.
On 20 March 1600, work was started on a large new L-plan tower house for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings.
Since the first paragraph discusses the earlier buildings on the site, I would move the information on the canons’ lodgings to the beginning. Consider: On 20 March 1600, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings, a large new L-plan tower house was begun for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond.
- Done
The family continued to prosper: in 1616, Walter Ogilvy was created Lord Ogilvy of Deskford; his son James was further elevated to become the first Earl of Findlater in 1638; in 1701 another James would become the Earl of Findlater and Seafield.
This seems unrelated to a section that is nominally dedicated to the Initial construction. Do you know of any work done by Walter or James that could tie this into construction?
- I've moved the bit about the fourth earl into the next section, so that we are continuing with the chronological approach.
Extension and modification
In the centuries following its initial construction, the house underwent a series of renovations, extensions and modifications.
Since you bring the history up to fairly recent times, you might want to consider: Since its initial contruction, the house has undergone a series….
- This is a fair point, but I'm trying to give a sense that it was repeatedly extended and remodelled in the 17th-19th centuries, which is described in this section. There was then an extended period when the house was neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair, before its latest renovation, which I cover in the next section.
A tower was added in 1660, shortly after the third Earl inherited it.[2] In 1709 the architects Alexander McGill and James Smith were asked to submit plans for a complete remodelling in the Palladian style. These were drawn up, but in the end less radical extensions and modifications were executed to the north and west wings, between 1711 and 1714.
Should Earl be capitalized?
- No, I don't think so. My understanding is that if the whole title is given then it's a proper name (so Earl of Findlater), but if it's just the word on its own then it's lower case. I think I'm consistent on this now.
Do you know anything about the Palladian plans and why they were not executed. Was it a question of taste, cost, other?
- I don't know. My guess would have been cost, but the sources aren't specific.
The house was ransacked for a second time during the Jacobite rising of 1745. James Ogilvy, 5th Earl of Findlater and 2nd Earl of Seafield, had travelled with his wife to Aberdeen to meet the Duke of Cumberland who was pursuing Bonny Prince Charlie's Jacobite army. In their absence, a group of Charles's supporters forced their way into the house on 8 April 1746 and ransacked it, carrying off as much as possible and destroying what could not be easily transported. Three days later, continuing his pursuit that would end at the Battle of Culloden, Cumberland arrived at the scene accompanied by Findlater to find the doors of the house forced open, the windows broken, and broken furniture and discarded papers strewn around the grounds.[6][8][9] Findlater subsequently petitioned Parliament for the sum of £8,000 in compensation for the losses incurred, but it is not clear whether he ever received any payment.
This whole paragraph is problematic. The section is entitled Extension and modification, but this is later history. Perhaps a different title for the section, although both the preceding and following sections concern building. Another idea could be a separate section on history.
- My problem here is that this ransacking took place in the middle of the period of extension and modification. I think that breaking it out into a different section would interrupt the chronological flow. I've changed the section title to Extension, modification and Jacobite assault, does that work for you?
Architects James and John Adam worked on the house from 1767 to 1769, installing the main staircase and building the gatehouse, and John Baxter made more internal modifications, including building the large bow window in the east facade, between 1777 and 1778.[7][2]
Recommend breaking off the second part into a separate sentence. Perhaps:. … building the gatehouse. Between 1777 and 1778, John Baxter made more internal modifications, including the building of the large bow window in the east facade.
Note: add the and of
- Done
Check numerical sequence of references.
In 1780, Robert Adam was commissioned by the fourth Earl to provide a design for an entirely new house; this was not carried out however, nor were James Playfair's 1788 designs for an extensive remodelling in "the Saxon style". Playfair's walled garden was constructed in the grounds in that year.[7][2]
Earl capitalized?
- Done
Again, do you know why the designs were not executed?
- Again, no, probably cost but the sources aren't specific.
Check numerical sequence of references.
- Ugh, the numerical sequences are a pain. I fixed all those when it went through GA, and thought I'd been careful while moving things around during the Peer Review, but I must have overlook a few. I think it's sorted now.
Venicescapes (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Deterioration and renovation
However, the house was not her primary residence, and she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas; the house was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.
Consider: However, since she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas, the house was not her primary residence, and it was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.
- I prefer your version, changed.
He also lived elsewhere, and used the house commercially to host shooting parties and private functions.
Delete comma after elsewhere (compound predicate) OR transform into compound sentence by inserting he after and.
- Changed
If possible, avoid triple compound sentences. Consider: In 1972 it was designated a Category A listed building. By this time, however, it had become quite dilapidated, and its contents were sold off in 1975.
- The authors of the sources I used seem unafraid of the triple or quadruple compound sentence! Nevertheless, changed.
Firefighters fought to contain the blaze and managed to put it out within three hours, but severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.
Consider: Firefighters fought to contain the blaze, and although they managed to put it out within three hours, severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.
- Better, changed.
Suggest dividing sentence: Restoration work was carried out over the course of the next two years, using photographic records and material recovered from the fire to restore the external masonry to its original appearance. Specialist joiners and plasterers were brought in to work on the interiors, but some of the building's internal features including an early seventeenth-century painted ceiling in the second salon were irreparably damaged.Venicescapes (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better, changed.
Architecture
I would move the information on its location (set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn) to the very beginning of the article: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle. This section should deal with just architecture. The resulting sentence could be: Cullen House is a large, ornately decorated, turreted house. OR Cullen House is a large turreted house that is ornately decorated.
- I think this needs to be somewhere in the body of the article, if it is to be included in the lead. I don't think that a brief description of the building's situation is entirely out of place at the start of a section about its architecture? I guess I could have a separate section on 'situation', but it would probably be very short. Do you insist on this change?
- Sorry, I meant at the beginning of Initial construction
- Understood - done
- Sorry, I meant at the beginning of Initial construction
- I think this needs to be somewhere in the body of the article, if it is to be included in the lead. I don't think that a brief description of the building's situation is entirely out of place at the start of a section about its architecture? I guess I could have a separate section on 'situation', but it would probably be very short. Do you insist on this change?
I would move The original seventeenth-century L-plan tower house, which itself incorporated stonework from earlier buildings on the site, has been extended by the addition of wings to the north and south. to the beginning of the Exterior subsection. As is, it gives the impression that you’re about to explain the evolution of the house, but then you return to the broad statement by McKean.Venicescapes (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've moved this.
Interior
Triple compound sentences can be cumbersome. Consider: The main house has been divided into seven separate apartments, but each of the principal rooms has been preserved, many of their historical features remaining intact.
- I've moved things around slightly and made into two sentences.
Can you give a sense of the size of the various apartments?
- Unfortunately, no - Hog Farm raised a similar issue, about the dimensions of the whole building, but none of the sources I've been able to access give me any figures for dimensions. Apparently there are plans and elevations dating to 1931 in the Scottish National Library in Edinburgh, in their special collections, but I don't have access to that and I'm not sure they would count as a published source for our purposes.
Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door, dated 1618, with its original key and lock.
Are both the staircase and ceiling by James Adams? If not, reword.
- Yes - stair hall, staircase and ceiling are all James Adam. Do you think I need to reword to avoid ambiguity?
- Try: Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling, both by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door...
- Done
- Try: Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling, both by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door...
- Yes - stair hall, staircase and ceiling are all James Adam. Do you think I need to reword to avoid ambiguity?
…with its original key and lock.
This seems excessively detailed, unless the lock is by a renowned locksmith.
- I like this little detail - there aren't many doors that old in Scotland, and very few with their original furniture. Are you set on losing it?
- It's fine.
- I like this little detail - there aren't many doors that old in Scotland, and very few with their original furniture. Are you set on losing it?
Many of the house's original public rooms retain original Victorian ceilings; others, which were damaged in the fire of 1987, have been restored or reproduced. A grand Jacobean painted ceiling, depicting a siege of Troy and bearing the Royal arms of Scotland (suggesting that it predated the 1603 Union of the Crowns),[5] was destroyed by the fire, and has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.
bubbles and astronauts … oh my!
- Ha - yes, you get a really strong sense of Walker and Woodworth's opinions about that ceiling when they describe the interior - their description is very measured, but the derision is dripping out between the lines.
Change to: the siege of Troy
- Good point - I haven't heard of another one!
With the parentheses, the sentence is long. Consider breaking off the second part: …was destroyed by the fire. It has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done
Check numerical sequence of references throughout article. For example: There is a square entrance hall in the north wing, with a fireplace decorated with blue and white Delftware tiles.[18][2] Venicescapes (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is fixed now throughout the article.
Grounds
You might want to consider restructuring this section. At the end of the first three paragraphs, you make the same statement about the structure's being listed. Is it possible to combine these into a single introductory sentence? The grounds contain several structures which are Category A listed in their own right. These include a bridge, gatehouse, and a temple. The appropriate references can be after bridge, gatehouse, and temple.
- Great idea - that also helps to address one of DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered's concerns about the repetitiveness in this section.
First paragraph: Leading off the house's west courtyard is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam, which spans the gorge of the Cullen Burn. It has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft), and is built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels. Can you avoid the double span? Perhaps Leading off the house's west courtyard and crossing the gorge of the Cullen Burn is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam. Built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels, it has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft).Venicescapes (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done
Second paragraph: At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse known as the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768. The two participles should be joined by a conjunction OR rewritten as At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse, the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768.
- Changed
This wide entrance for carriages is built in the form of a triumphal arch, with Ionic columns supporting a pediment with armorial decoration in the tympanum, and decorated with lions, rampant at the apex, and recumbent to the sides. Can you avoid the double with? Also, where exactly are the lions? Inside the tympanum, but on the sides?
- Changed. The lions are on top of the tympanum, I've reworded slightly to make that clearer.
Third paragraph: Would it be appropriate to say Grecian temple pavilion with a link to Pavilion? Is the temple inside the walled garden? If so, this should be clearer. If not, the information on the garden might be more appropriate in the fourth paragraph. Is this a two-storey structure? It seems to be but could be clearer. Is the tearoom also circular? The second sentence should be broken up.
- I'll come back to this shortly. I'm away from home, and won't have access to the offline sources describing this structure for a few days - I'll try to make it clearer ASAP.
Fourth paragraph: I would reorganize the final paragraph for parallelism. The first three all have the structures as the topic, whereas you start the fourth with Robertson and his nephews. Consider: The grounds contain a number of other estate buildings, many of which were designed by Robertson and, after his death, by his nephews Alexander and William Reid who continued his practice. These include an ice house, a garden house, a laundry, and cottages for staff such as gardeners.Venicescapes (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done
- Thanks for such a thorough and helpful review, Venicescapes - you made some excellent suggestions, and picked up on quite a few things where my writing could have been better. I have addressed almost all of them now, but will need access to an offline source that I don't have with me right now to act on your suggestions for the rotunda/pavilion. Let me know if I've missed anything, very much appreciated. Girth Summit (blether) 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
L. D. Reynolds
- Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm presenting you an article on the Welsh Latinist Leighton Durham Reynolds. Spending his entire career at Brasenose College, Oxford, Reynolds was a textual critic whose work revolutionised the study of Seneca's Letters. He also wrote the most successful general introduction to his field, a small book named Sribes and Scholars.
The article is built in the mould of my recent FA on R. A. B. Mynors and is in many ways a continuation of my work there. About a week ago, the article was kindly reviewed for GA by Amitchell125. I will, of course, be grateful for any suggestions for improvement, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note on image in the infobox: there is an image of Reynolds available online which could be used in the infobox with a fair use rationale. However, I have been in touch with Brasenose college to ask whether they might want to donate a free, high-quality version of the image. They haven't yet replied but, as a courtesy to them, I wouldn't like to resort to the fair use version until we know that Brasenose can't provide the image. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing is good. Please ping when the lead image is sorted out one way or the other. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
SupportComments from Ergo Sum
Lead
- I'm no textual scholar, but I'm not quite sure what the term "standard edition" means here. I could probably take a guess given the context, but if this is a term of art in the field, I think it would be better to either give a brief explanation right at the outset. If it is not a term of art, I would suggest rephrasing so that the reader has an idea of what is meant by its later usage in the article.
- Done by adding a note. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The conventions on whether or not to capitalize "classics" and whether to precede it with the definite article are so messy that I can't quibble about it here.
- Thank you. My personal preference is to capitalise but I recognise there are different takes on this. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- "fellow of Brasenose College". I just want to verify that "of" is the typical phrasing rather than "at"
- Fellow "of" the college is conventional though "at" could certainly be used. (The point being that fellows at Oxbridge colleges make up the governing body and are more than just teaching staff.) Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- British Academy should be linked in the lede. I think "fellow" should be lowercase here per MOS.
- Done
- I'm generally of the opinion that deaths need not be mentioned in the lede (except for death date in parentheses) unless the nature of the death were notable for some reason.
- Done
achievement of Reynolds career
. Need an apostrophe.
- Done
...in which he advanced a new reconstruction of the transmission and revealed...
. The meaning of this sentence is largely lost on me, a non-expert. Because WP's readership is primarily non-expert, I'd suggest rephrasing to be a bit more accessible (hopefully without sacrificing accuracy).
- I've tried to find a better wording but do say if this doesn't go far enough, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Scribes and Scholars: a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature
. I generally see the first letter of a work's subtitle capitalized. Does this work not do this?- Kindly Done by Noswall. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
At the time of its publication
. Should be followed by a comma.
- Done
considered by some commentators to be difficult to surpass
I would put a comma after this.
- Done
- If possible, you can probably tweak a bit to condense the lede down to three or maybe even two paragraphs, given the length of the article.
- You are right, the article is probably too short to require four paragraphs in the lead. I'm somewhat reluctant to condense because I personally think that it does an appropriate job of summarising all the relevant points. With that said, I could condense the second and first paragraphs into one. Would it be okay if I held off on condensing the lead until other reviewers have seconded your point? Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm not actually very concerned about the length as is. It might be just a bit long but it's still a reasonable length. Ergo Sum 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
- For the infobox, I've observed the unwritten convention of using the Education parameter for education that didn't result in a degree and Alma mater for that which did. I'd suggest switching to the latter and adding the degree received in parentheses behind the institution.
- Done
- The name parameter in an infobox is generally the name by which the subject is commonly known. In this case, it would be the article name. I suggest changing it accordingly and then making use of
|birth_name=
for his full name.
- Done
Early life
- Need a comma after Abercanaid.
- Done
- I'm not so sure about the use of the colon. That seems like a semi-colon situation.
- Done
- Modern languages need not be capitalized.
- Done
- Perhaps specify that Università per Stranieri di Perugia is in Italy. Up to your discretion.
- Done
an expert on the Ancient Greek novel
Is this meant to refer to one novel in particular?
- It's the Greek novel as a genre. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that wasn't apparent to me when I first read it. This phrasing strikes me as a bit of a rhetorical flourish, which might be lost on a casual reader (like myself, it seems). "on Ancient Greek novels" might be a slightly more prosaic way of putting it. Ergo Sum 00:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I've used your suggestion. "The Greek Novel" is used so frequently in our discipline that one can forget how misleading the term can be. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can probably move the reference supporting the length of his Air Force service to the end of the sentence.
- Done
Career
the influence of three textual critics working at Oxford
. I think a colon, rather than a comma, should follow this phrase.
- Done
- You should have an inline citation inside the footnote to support the explanation of what a transmission is.
- Done
When his research fellowship ended
The phrasing of this sentence sounds a bit odd. Perhaps just cut out the introductory clause and just leave the part about the post becoming open and then beginning the next sentence with his appointment following the end of the fellowship.
- Done
University Lecturer
. If this is not a proper title, then it should be lowercase.
- Yes, it's a proper title, as opposed to just "lecturer" in general. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Likewise for vice-principal and principal
- Both are proper titles. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems there has been a push to make what I would generally consider capitalized titles lowercase on WP (e.g. president of the United States or chancellor of the University of Oxford). I tend to lean toward capitalization for offices that are uniquely held by one person and are well established/prominent, so I don't object to the capitalization here. Just wanted to mention that other editors might disagree. Ergo Sum 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
near Oxford which
I would recommend a comma after Oxford.
- Done
- As above, I think a semi-colon is more appropriate than a colon regarding the visiting fellowships.
- Done
Seneca's Letters
- As above, there should be an inline citation inside the footnote about Greek letters.
- DoneI actually found a suitable place in Reynolds and Wilson. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Further critical editions
- Ditto regarding inline citations in the corruption footnote.
- Done
Scribes
- I would re-introduce Wilson by full name, since he was introduced by name several sections prior.
- Done
- Ditto regarding subtitles, per above.
- Also kindly Done by Noswall. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Legacy
Revello named Reynolds'
. While grammatically correct, it might read a bit smoother by saying "Reynolds' editions".
- Done
Bibliography
- For any links references that do not contain stable URLs (e.g. doi or JSTOR identifiers, I would add an archival link.
- Done though I'm not very experienced at this, so feel free to correct mistakes if there are any. For one reference, Hörmann (1970), there seems to be a PID number which only seems to show in the source text. I'm not sure whether this is a problem. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
- I recommend adding {{Use British English}}.
- Done
- Regardless of the response from Brasenose, I encourage you to upload the free image to the Commons. Always helpful to add to its massive collection of images whenever one can.
- The reason why I'm hesitating to upload the available image is that it isn't actually free. Our use of it would only work under a fair use rationale. If the the image were indeed free, I would have already uploaded it to the Commons. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The first footnote regarding standard edition needs an inline citation.
- Ah yes, the reason I didn't automatically add a reference is this: the content of the footnote only spells out what the adjective "standard" can mean in this context. I don't know whether there is a reliable source which adequately describes this meaning because it's typically deduced. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, uses the term in its articles but doesn't itself describe what it denotes. So, to summarise, I think a reference would not be practical or necessary in this case. We could cut the note altogether since, as you indicate above, the term is near self-explanatory in the context of this article. In my view a link would be the ideal solution but our entries under the relevant title are not very helpful. In the Mynors article the term was used without objection, which might be an indication that readers found it reasonably straightforward to decode. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll readily admit that literature is not my field of expertise, but I have not come across that term in adjacent fields in which I am more well read, like philosophy, where I would expect to encounter it if it were not a term of art particular to a given field. Alternatively, it might just be an example of a British-American vocabulary divide; I don't know. If you think the term is sufficiently commonplace that there isn't a source that could be cited to support an explanation, my suggestion would be to rephrase the sentence to avoid the term until it can be explained by additional context later on in the article. If others disagree and think the meaning is really too obvious that explanation is unnecessary, then I'd retract that. Ergo Sum 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have opted to remove the note and rephrase the lead so that the term doesn't crop up. In the body, the concept is introduced in a quotation saying that Reynolds' edition would become the "standard text" of the work. I hope this is a reasonable compromise. I would not want to ignore your opinion on this since those who, like you, are well read in adjacent fields are surely the educated general reader whom we should have in mind. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have. Another very fine article from Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 01:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Ergo Sum, for your comments. Have a look at my responses and feel free to let me know if more needs to be done. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've added just a few more comments above. In any event, I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from Noswall59
I don't think I have reviewed an article before and found so few quibbles. This is an excellent piece of work and brilliantly written. I have made some very minor copyedits here which I shall explain. Firstly, I don't believe that we italicise book series (this would be confusing because we do italicise book names). Secondly, I believe we capitalise the first letter in a book's subtitle as a matter of course. Thirdly, based on some advice I was recently given, I think it makes sense when a proper noun ends in an "s" to use an apostrophe followed by another "s" for the possessive; this way, it reads as it sounds (hence, Reynolds's).
These really are the most minor of points though and I recognise that the latter is rather subjective. Based on the prose, I am happy to support this. It seems to cover the full details of his career too, and, though I'm not an expert, offers a concise summary of his scholarly output. On this last point, I have added the short list of articles and chapters he wrote to the list publications (I think that's appropriate under the "comprehensive" criteria for FAC). Unfortunately, the Cite Book template shows the editor as the author when there is no author field, so I've had to include author fields and then mask the author's name, which has altered the format slightly from your preference. Apologies for this – I tried to find a work around to no avail (this is probably something which needs raising with the template developers). Anyway, I'm happy to support this article – the first time I can recall offering support here without asking for changes! Many thanks for this fine contribution. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC).
- @Noswall59: I'm flattered to read these kind words. Thank you, too, for adding the additional publications (I may have been slightly lazy when I didn't include them in the initial version) and your copyedits. It's impressive to see so much initiative in improving someone else's article at FAC. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- "he wrote the most commonly cited edition of Seneca the Younger's Letters" - source?
- Done
- ""his edition of the Letters still serves as the standard text in the early 21st century" - would suggest making this an "as of 2001" statement given the sourcing
- Done
- Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
- Done I identified one that was wrongly abbreviated. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- How are you ordering Bibliography?
- Done Should have been alphabetically but I made a mistake in the 'K' range. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Who publishes Gymnasium? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't give a publisher since Gymnasium is a periodical. It's published by Universitätsverlag Winter . Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this, Nikkimaria. Please see my comments above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
J. Havens Richards
- Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 23:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a Jesuit whose journey to becoming the president of Georgetown University started with his secret baptism as an infant. He eventually became one of the most significant presidents in the university's history and helped to bring it into the modern age.
Support Comments from Modussiccandi
Lead
- "Richards eventually entered the Society of Jesus" this bit feels somewhat redundant because we've just learnt that he "was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit".
- Fair enough. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 01:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "such the completion of Healy Hall" you are missing an "as" here.
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "high-caliber" the word somehow seems too colloquial. Also, it doesn't seem clear what exactly this means.
- That's fair. I've removed it because I don't really think it makes sense it that context anyway. Ergo Sum 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "significantly bolstered the graduate programs" "significantly" can be left out, especially since you've already used the word in the lead.
- Done. Ergo Sum 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "some proponents of which called for" is a mouthful; you could as well leave out the entire relative clause because I feel it's enough to know at this point that he "navigated tensions".
- Removed it and added a brief mention that CUA is also in DC. Ergo Sum 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Early life
- I'm not sure the Harvard reference to Shea (1891) is formatted correctly. Could it be that the book is missing after Richards (1913)?
- I'm not sure how that ref disappeared, but I've re-added it. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Henry Livingston was ostracized" consider replacing "ostracized" for accessibility's sake.
- I know it's more or less a matter of opinion, but I don't know if it's that unusual a word. I can't really think of a one-word synonym that captures quite the same thing. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "As a result" doesn't feel strictly necessary.
- I'm open to rephrasing but I think having some causal link between the ostracization and his abandoning ministry keeps the narrative flowing and is informative for the reader. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that the 'Ancestry' section is strictly necessary. Of course, it's always better to have more detail but I'm not sure the information in that section (particularly the second paragraph) adds much to the article. Now, I won't withhold support if you leave the section in; let's see what other reviewers think.
- I can see the argument for trimming it down. I'd like to get some more input on how that should be dealt with. Ergo Sum 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Georgetown University
- "Richards was made the rector and president of Georgetown University" this important bit comes quite abruptly. Is anything known about the circumstances?
- Unfortunately not. The source is just as abrupt as the phrasing in that paragraph and I haven't been able to find any more detail from other sources. Ergo Sum 01:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "upon his instruction" I think it's clear from context that Richards was responsible for this.
- Removed. Ergo Sum 01:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards succeeded in bringing prominent faculty from Europe onto the Georgetown faculty" are there notable examples who could be included with a wikilink?
- I've added an example and rephrased to be more faithful to the source. Ergo Sum 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Graduate courses in the arts and sciences were re-established in 1889" can you give more context on when/why they had been abolished in the first place or were they moved to Woodstock too?
- I'm not really sure. The source says that theology moved to Boston and then Woodstock because of the Civil War but doesn't explain why arts and sciences courses stopped. If I had to guess, I'd say it was because of the Civil War, but I can't say for sure. I checked the Curran source too and didn't find any specific mention of graduate A&S courses. Ergo Sum 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Was the Catholic University of America also based in DC?
- Yes, I've added a note of this. Ergo Sum 01:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "and Catholic University dropped its plans" do we need an article here and in the next sentence? (I'm unsure.)
- While the official name of the school is "The Catholic University of America," it is quite often referred to simply as "Catholic University" (without the article) for short. Ergo Sum 01:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "John Gilmary Shea" it would be good to get a very brief introduction to this person (e. g. to say that he was an historian or such). The same is true for Elizabeth Wharton Drexel.
- Added a brief intro. Ergo Sum 01:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Pastoral work
- "spiritual father" does this mean his job was only pastoral? Perhaps clarify.
- I'm not entirely sure what the term means. I've just copied it from the source. I imagine it probably meant a kind of senior position in the institution that involved pastoral rather than administrative responsibilities, but it's a term that means different things in different contexts, so it is hard for me to give an answer. Ergo Sum 01:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Later years
- "his first stroke" I think 'a stroke' would work as well because the second stroke is already marked as such.
- Rephrased. Ergo Sum 01:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "in the hospital" I'm not sure the article is needed though I'm admittedly shaky on these things.
- This is very much a British vs. American English point. AmEng always uses the article when referring to a stay in the hospital, while BritEng always omits it. Ergo Sum 01:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Images
- Am I right to assume that dates aren't available for the images where none is given?
- Yes, any dates I was able to find have already been included on images. Ergo Sum 01:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
It's good to see another article in this series by you. Have a look at my comments, some of which are really more suggestions. I might have more when after you've addressed them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, as always, for your input, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Good stuff. I will support now, given that I was merely offering quibbles to a very good article. I'll be interested to see what (if anything at all) other reviewers say about the 'Ancestry' section. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- What is the benefit of including both the 1890 and the Healy Hall image?
- I figured there were that many images of the subject to begin with, so I'd try to include whatever ones I could find. The two photos are pretty different, since one is a higher quality one of him standing in a studio, while the other is a more candid shot of him actually at the university. Ergo Sum 02:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hm. I would say the article is overillustrated for its length with several similar-looking images, and in particular with sandwiching between these two. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed the sketch of him and kept the two aforementioned. This should alleviate the sandwiching. Ergo Sum 16:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hm. I would say the article is overillustrated for its length with several similar-looking images, and in particular with sandwiching between these two. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I figured there were that many images of the subject to begin with, so I'd try to include whatever ones I could find. The two photos are pretty different, since one is a higher quality one of him standing in a studio, while the other is a more candid shot of him actually at the university. Ergo Sum 02:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest improving alt text - no need for so much duplication between alt and caption
- Improved the alt text. Ergo Sum 02:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:J._Havens_Richards_portrait_2.jpg: when and where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
- As with many images I uploaded in the past on this subject, I seem to have incorrectly tagged them. I've adjusted the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 02:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Joseph_Havens_Richards_portrait.jpg: is the tagging on the basis that this was a work for hire, or is the date of death of the creator known?
- I based it on the second bullet point of the template: unknown author death date + created before 1901. Ergo Sum 02:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given that there is a studio listed though, could the author reasonably be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did some digging and identified exactly who the author was (including death date). I've adjusted the license tags accordingly. I think they're right now, but that sort of thing has never been my forte. Ergo Sum 17:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given that there is a studio listed though, could the author reasonably be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I based it on the second bullet point of the template: unknown author death date + created before 1901. Ergo Sum 02:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:J._Havens_Richards_portrait.png: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Touché. I've corrected the tag. Ergo Sum 02:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
- "Henry Livingston Richards' name was sometimes spelled as Livingstone." per MOS:POSS, this should be Richards's
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards' father sought to send" same as above.
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "He had an ambitious plan to transform Georgetown into a modern," I'm hesitant to have the word ambitious in wikivoice. Who said that this plan was ambitious?
- I'm inclined to say that falls within the narrow band of editorializing permitted to enhance the prose of an article, but I suppose erring on the side of faithfulness to sources is best. Removed. Ergo Sum 23:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "which had previously been removed to Boston and then to Woodstock College." -> "which had previously been moved to Boston, then Woodstock College."
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards sharply criticized the decision" Delete sharply
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The property of the medical school, which theretofore had been owned by its own legal corporation was transferred to the President and Directors of Georgetown College," Put a comma after corporation.
- Done. Ergo Sum 00:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards also worked with Bishop John Keane to address tensions" Delete also
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards' most immediate task" Richards's
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "construction of which began in 1877 under Patrick F. Healy, but whose interior remained unfinished." delete this comma?
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "He was able to have the bulk of the work complete" Did he do anything special to speed up this work, such as devote additional funds to it?
- The source does not elaborate on this. Ergo Sum 23:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1893, James Jeffrey Roche, the editor of the Catholic Boston newspaper The Pilot, wrote Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, about the fact that no..." Lots of commas here. Maybe, "James Jeffrey Roche, the editor of the Catholic Boston newspaper The Pilot, wrote to Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, in 1893 about the fact that no..."
- Unless I'm misreading this, those are the same sentence minus the year. I'm not sure that simplifies it that much. I've swapped some of the commas out for em dashes. That should simplify it somewhat. Ergo Sum 23:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- " family in Boston due to news of his mother's death." -> "family in Boston after his mother's death."
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards then returned to Los Gatos in April" delete then, the reader knows this happened after his return to Boston so is redundant.
- Done. Ergo Sum 23:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards then returned to Los Gatos in April, where he remained until the summer of 1901, when he returned to Frederick, Maryland. There, he became minister of the novitiate." -> "Richards returned to Los Gatos in April. In the summer of 1901, he returned to Frederick, Maryland and became minister of the novitiate." This puts the Los Gatos activities in one sentence, and the Maryland activities in the other.
- Done. Ergo Sum 00:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "With the relocation of the novitiate to St. Andrew-on-Hudson in Poughkeepsie, New York in January 1903, Richards followed as minister." -> "Richards moved to St. Andrew-on-Hudson in Poughkeepsie, New York, in January 1903 when the novitiate was relocated there." This allows the sentence to start with a noun, which is usually preferable to having the verb come before the noun.
- I must disagree with the rule that sentences should start with a noun, but I do like your phrasing better here. Done. Ergo Sum 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to categorize it as a rule, as I can think of many examples of when a verb should go before the noun. Rather I am generalising a practice in English, a language with many exceptions to rules, guidelines, and practices. I thank you for thinking about my suggestions before deciding to accept just to garner my support, or reject in order to argue. I appreciate editors who bring conversations to FACs. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I must disagree with the rule that sentences should start with a noun, but I do like your phrasing better here. Done. Ergo Sum 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "In the summer of 1903, he was instead made the procurator, and was in charge of the mission in Pleasant Valley." Why is instead here? Was he not a novitiate when he moved to Poughkeepsie?
- This is to indicate that he basically switched jobs from minister to procurator. A novitiate is the actual institution, while a novice is one who attends the institution. But, no, he was not a novice. Indeed, as minister or procurator he would be roughly the equivalent of vice president of the institution. Ergo Sum 00:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please correct me if I am wrong with this timeline: In summer 1901 Richards moved to Frederick and became a minister of the novitiate. In January 1903 the novitiate and Richards move to Hyde Park, New York, and Richards is still a minister of the novitiate. In summer 1903, Richards becomes a procurator, and is no longer a minister. If this timeline is correct, I am still confused as to why the text said he is "instead made a procurator" as this wording gives me the impression that he was not a minister after the novitiate moved to Hyde Park. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- That timeline is correct. He was still minister after the novitiate moved for a few months before ceasing to hold that job and instead becoming procurator. Does that not come across in the currently wording? Ergo Sum 02:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The timeline comes across, but I think "instead" is the wrong word to use in the quote cited in the first bullet point, "In the summer of 1903, he was instead made the procurator, and was in charge of the mission in Pleasant Valley." The current wording makes it sound like in the move to Hyde Park, he became a procurator right away instead of remaining as a minister for a time, which is incorrect. I think "instead" should be deleted from that sentence. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The timeline comes across, but I think "instead" is the wrong word to use in the quote cited in the first bullet point, "In the summer of 1903, he was instead made the procurator, and was in charge of the mission in Pleasant Valley." The current wording makes it sound like in the move to Hyde Park, he became a procurator right away instead of remaining as a minister for a time, which is incorrect. I think "instead" should be deleted from that sentence. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- That timeline is correct. He was still minister after the novitiate moved for a few months before ceasing to hold that job and instead becoming procurator. Does that not come across in the currently wording? Ergo Sum 02:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please correct me if I am wrong with this timeline: In summer 1901 Richards moved to Frederick and became a minister of the novitiate. In January 1903 the novitiate and Richards move to Hyde Park, New York, and Richards is still a minister of the novitiate. In summer 1903, Richards becomes a procurator, and is no longer a minister. If this timeline is correct, I am still confused as to why the text said he is "instead made a procurator" as this wording gives me the impression that he was not a minister after the novitiate moved to Hyde Park. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is to indicate that he basically switched jobs from minister to procurator. A novitiate is the actual institution, while a novice is one who attends the institution. But, no, he was not a novice. Indeed, as minister or procurator he would be roughly the equivalent of vice president of the institution. Ergo Sum 00:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "He then transferred again to Boston College in the summer of 1906 as spiritual father, where he remained for a year." Delete then, delete again as these are redundant and assumed based on the preceding sentences.
- Removed "then" but kept "again." I think it makes sense to keep it since the same section mentions that he was as Boston College not long before. Ergo Sum 00:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Richards then became operarius[b] of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola in New York City." When did this happen?
- Immediately after leaving Boston College. I have rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Ergo Sum 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "At the same time, he became pastor of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola." -> "He concurrently became paster of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola." It shortens the sentence and deletes a comma, which I think I have a personal vendetta against...but that's another discussion.
- Done. (But tweaked slightly to avoid a split infinitive). Ergo Sum 00:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Being advanced in age, he was relieved of the position by the provincial superior on March 25, 1919," Was his old age cited as a reason he was relieved of the position? If so, this should be more explicit in the text.
- I've taken another look at the source and I think the way I phrased it was a bit misleading. In a religious order, one cannot simply retire from a position to which they were assigned by a superior; they must be relieved by the provincial. But here, the source says he requested to be relieved because of his age and the provincial allowed it. So I've rephrased to retiring, which is really more accurate. Ergo Sum 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Following his positions in New York, " Delete, this is covered in the previous section and is redundant.
- This would break of the temporal continuity because the section would begin with no frame of reference as to time. Ergo Sum 00:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are my comments. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Janet(s)
- Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about an episode of the television series The Good Place and is probably most notable for D'Arcy Carden's multiple roles, though it also contains several major plot reveals. I got this to GA status last year but have made major additions since then to fully cover production, analysis, and critical reviews, and I now hope to make this my first FA. Special thanks to Heartfox for advice during the GA nomination and to Wetrorave and Aoba47 for their help at the peer review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Aoba4
- I support the article for promotion based on the prose. All of my concerns were answered during the peer review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: "0.8 rating in the 18–49 demographic"/"1.5 rating in the 18–49 demographic" seems like MOS:JARGON. Is there anyway to say this so non-Americans/people who are not knowledgeable about television ratings can understand it? Pamzeis (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Pamzeis: I've added a footnote to explain what a rating is, and I've reworded the first "18–49 demographic" to "adults ages 18–49". RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Harry F. Sinclair House
- Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC), Epicgenius
This article is about a historic, Gilded Age mansion in New York City built in the last three years of the 19th century by a seasoned New York architect. It's a pretty charming place, today housing a Ukrainian cultural nonprofit. I worked with Epicgenius in June 2020 to get this to GA for meta:Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month, and we've decided to at last proceed to FAC. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image review: Painting is not in public domain according to Met Museum. In US painting copyright can be complicated as they are often unpublished works. Other image copyright looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: At 70 PMA, for unpublished works, the painting's copyright would have expired in 1994. It could be in the 25 year minimum window for unpublished works, but that seems unlikely because the painting was gifted to the met in 1917 and first shown in 1918. It is possible that this is a Uruguay Round Agreements Act case, but France is 70 PMA and the author isn't a Mort pour la France case. I think it is safe to assume the painting is in the public domain. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- First of all, public display of artwork does not count as publication, at least under US law. Given that we don't know the first publication date and the Met believes that there are rights issues I think we would need conclusive evidence of public domain status. (t · c) buidhe 16:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Even if it has never been published, the copyright would have expired, under both French and American copyright law, 70 years after Raffaëlli's death (1994). The met restriction is probably French moral rights and not copyright. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- First of all, public display of artwork does not count as publication, at least under US law. Given that we don't know the first publication date and the Met believes that there are rights issues I think we would need conclusive evidence of public domain status. (t · c) buidhe 16:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: At 70 PMA, for unpublished works, the painting's copyright would have expired in 1994. It could be in the 25 year minimum window for unpublished works, but that seems unlikely because the painting was gifted to the met in 1917 and first shown in 1918. It is possible that this is a Uruguay Round Agreements Act case, but France is 70 PMA and the author isn't a Mort pour la France case. I think it is safe to assume the painting is in the public domain. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- also called the Isaac D. Fletcher House - is this the official name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- This was the original name. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "magnates" isn't exactly a common word. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- In the U.S., I see it quite often, but I've switched this out for an alternative. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ukrainian American Institute - why is this bolded? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- restoring the Sinclair House - was it in disrepair? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've clarified that it was. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- as we have a critical reception, it should have a presence in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- In 1897,[1] - what exactly are you citing here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- This source is specifically used to cite the date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 78th and 79th Streets. - why is one linked and one not? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- 78th Street does not have an article at the moment. It may make sense to link it, though, in case it becomes notable enough for an article in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- But neither does 79. If we link one, then we link both, or neither. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 79th Street (Manhattan) does have a page, but I see what the problem is now. "79th Street" was already linked above, hence why it wasn't linked in that sentence. Apparently, so was Fifth Avenue, so I've removed that duplicate link. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- But neither does 79. If we link one, then we link both, or neither. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 78th Street does not have an article at the moment. It may make sense to link it, though, in case it becomes notable enough for an article in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. Cook owned a lot, and was purchased by Fletcher. So
To design his "Cook block" abode,[5] Fletcher hired architect C. P. H. Gilbert,[7][8][a] and so impressed Fletcher that he commissioned a painting of the finished residence from Jean-François Raffaëlli in 1899.
- what does Cook block mean, and what does the painting mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)- I've split these - they are two different ideas. The house was built on the block owned by Cook, which was called the "Cook block". The painting was commissioned after the house was completed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- He bequeathed the property and his art collection - is the art collection important? It's the first we mention it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Met - informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Augustus Jr. and Anne van Horne Stuyvesant - Is it Augustus Jr. Stuyvesant? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed, it was Augustus Stuyvesant Jr. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Anne died there - I'd assume this is Anne van Horne as a first name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- described this work as "just a Band-Aid", as the building was in a poor state - I feel like this could be explained better without the quote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Removed and clarified what exactly this means. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- New York Times, lot and wrought iron are duplinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Colonnette - is this a mispelling? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- A couple cases of unneccesary redirects, such as [[Belt course]]s Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I removed redirects where they were unnecessary, but generally I didn't do the other ones per WP:NOTBROKEN. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel like the images have a commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I forgot to ask what you meant by that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Like "Dining hall, on the second floor" - I get that the caption says what the image is, but doesn't really say anything about why we have the image, or anything about what's in the image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I forgot to ask what you meant by that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- ecclesiastical - not really a common word. I'd never heard of it. Maybe a more common term? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Can we remove the 25em from the reflist and let the browser do the work? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Loss (comic)
- Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a comic strip that New York Magazine declared as "the Internet's Longest-Running Miscarriage 'Joke'". A webcomic usually video game focused, Ctrl+Alt+Del made its mark onto the internet by having a storyline where the main characters wife suffers a miscarriage. And ever since the strip was posted, it has experienced a legacy as an internet meme, surpassing its original source material and being fairly recognizable in abstract ways.
The article is short but I believe it meets the criteria for it to become a Featured Article. But I am open to criticisms and ready to improve whatever. GamerPro64 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero
Why are these sources high quality RSes
- 1Up.com
- 1UP is a reliable source for the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay but why is it a High Quality RS? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- 1Up.com is cited in many featured articles, search "1Up.com" deepcat:"Featured articles" here. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay but why is it a High Quality RS? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- 1UP is a reliable source for the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reply All
- Reply All has been a well established podcast for years, covering topics on the internet. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- How is there editorial oversight? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reply All has been a well established podcast for years, covering topics on the internet. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq
- Joystiq is a reliable source for the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq is described as a blog by our article on it. Why is it a High Quality RS? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq is cited in many featured articles (search "Joystiq" deepcat:"Featured articles" here), including South Park: The Stick of Truth, which was "Today's FA" on the Main Page two days ago. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ObserveOwl: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park: The Stick of Truth/archive1 wasn't a deep review. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq is cited in many featured articles (search "Joystiq" deepcat:"Featured articles" here), including South Park: The Stick of Truth, which was "Today's FA" on the Main Page two days ago. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq is described as a blog by our article on it. Why is it a High Quality RS? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joystiq is a reliable source for the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Zero Punctuation
- Zero Punctuation is a series on The Escapist, which has been an established series on the website for over a decade. GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Varsity
- Are student newspapers usually received differently with reliable sources? GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Student newspapers are almost never high quality RSes --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are student newspapers usually received differently with reliable sources? GamerPro64 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the Varsity source. GamerPro64 22:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
--Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Spicy
I think the prose needs work. Some examples, just from the lead:
- "is a webcomic strip published on June 2, 2008, by Tim Buckley for his gaming-related webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del" - redundant.... you can just say "strip"
- The second sentence reads somewhat clumsily - I would revise it to "Set during a storyline in which the main character Ethan and his fiancée Lilah are expecting their first child, the strip—presented as a four-panel comic with no dialogue—shows Ethan entering a hospital..." Hospital does not need to be linked, per WP:OVERLINK.
- "Buckley cited personal events in his life as inspiration for the comic." - is 'personal' really necessary here?
- "Since the publication of the strip, it has garnered negative reception from critics and webcomic creators" - is the first clause needed? Obviously it wouldn't have gotten any reception before it was published...
- If 'fridging' is going to be mentioned in the lead, there should be a short explanation of what it is. Many people will not be familiar with the term (I am not) and they should not have to click out to another article to understand the lead.
- Two instances of "garnered" too close together
- "with edits to the strip being made by other creators" - see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing... might read better as something like: "... and later gained a legacy as an internet meme. Other creators made edits to the strip..."
- "and minimalistic representations of the basic visual structure." - I know what this means because I'm familiar with the meme, but I'm unsure if it would be clear to other readers
- Fixed. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Other comments:
- Not sure this really matters for FAC but File:Minimalist_loss.png would work better as an SVG.
- Done. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with concerns about sourcing above - I don't think we should be citing a student newspaper, at least. The sourcing feels very thin in general. I realize there's not going to be an Oxford monograph on Loss.jpg and this could very well be the best you can do but I think this is really pushing it at the FAC level. Spicy (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from LEvalyn
On the one hand, it's a strength of this article that it is brief and factual, and avoids the problem of WP:FANCRUFT. On the other hand, it feels somehow flimsy. If this was a Featured Article on the main page, would it be edifying to every wikipedia reader?
The Feldman article does a good job of contextualizing the comic and its impact for an audience that presumably knows almost nothing about it, and might be helpful for more "framing" of the material here.
- The reception section emphasizes the response from Penny Arcade's artists, which makes sense only for people who know what Feldman says: "If “Penny Arcade” represented the high-water mark of the genre (a more-than-debatable assertion) then “CAD” represented the dozens of lesser imitators." I think the "response" section would benefit from a more "zoomed out" view. I wouldn't quote an obvious joke from PA in the article; rather, a brief paraphrase-- and one that acknowledges their full answer to the interview Q, indicating that some of Buckley's audience liked the comic-- would be more encyclopedic.
- Given that Feldman says "The last strip to mention Lilah’s pregnancy prior to “Loss” had been published 10 installments and nearly a month prior," it sounds like it only sort of appeared "during a storyline where Ethan and Lilah were expecting their first child" (as the article describes it).
I also wonder if you could find someone in your life who has never heard of Loss.jpg-- a very "offline" relative, maybe-- and ask them to read the article and ask you questions about it; that kind of outside perspective might help identify where the context gaps are. There's been enough retrospective coverage of this meme that I think it can be done, but the writing will take some thorough thinking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Aliens (film)
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the 1986 seminal action horror film Aliens. It defined action films that came after and elevated Cameron to top tier director who would go on to make Terminator 2, one of the other greatest sequels of all time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from mgiganteus1
The image of the alien queen (File:Queen Alien.jpg) is incorrectly licensed. It cannot be free use as the creature design itself is protected. If an image is to be included it would have to be fair use (we already have File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg, which used to be in this article). mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've switched the image, though if that is the case, uploading the former as NFC seems better than retaining the latter. The latter image is really poor quality and has little detail on it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Surely a still from the film should trump a random photo of a promotional mockup? Fair use images up to 100,000 pixels are generally permitted. File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg is 55,500 pixels, so a slightly larger version could be uploaded, but bear in mind that the low resolution is required to meet the non-free content criteria. You would not be able to use File:Queen Alien.jpg at its current resolution under fair use. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ideally, a clear image of the puppet is going to trump anything. I'll leave the screenshot but I'm gonna look if there are any good behind-the-scenes photos that show it off in detail. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- That would work! mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ideally, a clear image of the puppet is going to trump anything. I'll leave the screenshot but I'm gonna look if there are any good behind-the-scenes photos that show it off in detail. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Surely a still from the film should trump a random photo of a promotional mockup? Fair use images up to 100,000 pixels are generally permitted. File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg is 55,500 pixels, so a slightly larger version could be uploaded, but bear in mind that the low resolution is required to meet the non-free content criteria. You would not be able to use File:Queen Alien.jpg at its current resolution under fair use. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
To meet the "well-researched" criterion I would expect this article to have a generous sprinkling of citations to J. W. Rinzler's excellent The Making of Aliens and probably also to Alien: The Archive. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't access books like that without buying them, but I would be surprised if there is information in the book that is not in the article short of technical minutiae, there's 256 references in the article.
- Have you checked if it's available through interlibrary loan? To meet the FA criteria I really think the article should cite what is arguably the definitive book on the subject. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not available, I can't meet that demand, but this article is sourced thoroughly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have you checked if it's available through interlibrary loan? To meet the FA criteria I really think the article should cite what is arguably the definitive book on the subject. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't access books like that without buying them, but I would be surprised if there is information in the book that is not in the article short of technical minutiae, there's 256 references in the article.
Comments from HAL
- Maybe link Alien (creature in Alien franchise) in the lead.
- Nitpicky, but "advocated for" is not used correctly. Reword
- Why is the theatrical gross a range?
More to come. Love that somebody gave this article some attention. ~ HAL333 19:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- The gross is a range because the two major sites, Box Office Mojo and the Numbers, post wildly different international figures. It's really difficult to get proper info on films from that time period. Some don't have international figures available at all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for more than two weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention by the three week mark I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Jarodalien
- Comment: Another Darkwarriorblake's masterpiece, another extremely long article that I have to translate (sad face)... Generally I'm going to support, here's a little suggestion: no need to link something like "location=United States", "location=Austin, Texas", "location=London", also names for publishers, publications, locations, website etc. should link one time at most, such a lot of links make people's eye tired. --Jarodalien (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Jarodalien, with references we're meant to link every time because refs get moved around a lot and so the "first" reference might not be the linked one and then you need to fix that every time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't fell the "first" really matters as they all crowed in References section, so we have Empire (film magazine) for around like a dozen time, eight The New York Times', nine Entertainment Weeklys, even six Stan Winstons etc. How about "location=United States", "location=Austin, Texas", "location=London", especially the first really isn't helpful, fell like if I don't know where that publisher is maybe just "location=earth".--Jarodalien (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I get your point, it's just how the Manual of Style guidelines are written. The United States as a location is normally one I can't help because the headquarters will literally just say "United States". I've done some more google-fu and gotten more precise locations for the ones that just say United States. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't fell the "first" really matters as they all crowed in References section, so we have Empire (film magazine) for around like a dozen time, eight The New York Times', nine Entertainment Weeklys, even six Stan Winstons etc. How about "location=United States", "location=Austin, Texas", "location=London", especially the first really isn't helpful, fell like if I don't know where that publisher is maybe just "location=earth".--Jarodalien (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Jarodalien, with references we're meant to link every time because refs get moved around a lot and so the "first" reference might not be the linked one and then you need to fix that every time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Funk
- I'll have a look soon, wanted to review earlier, but forgot to. We don't want a "game over, man" situation for this one! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
1983 World Snooker Championship
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the 1983 edition of the World Snooker Championship, won by Steve Davis. This was Davis' second of six championships, as he defeated Cliff Thorburn in the final. Thorburn made the first maximum break in the history of the championships. Benny and I are looking forward to your comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Support for prose, from Shooterwalker
I'll take a shot at this one. Look for further comments from me shortly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- General comments / Lead / Overview
I know we went through this before on other articles in the topic area. So I raise a few things, understanding that consistency and precedent may make these requests moot:
- "for the purposes of sponsorship" might be excessive detail for the first sentence. It might fit better at the end of the paragraph, when you mention the sponsor.
- I think it's better to keep it at the start (the name that is), but maybe we don't need to explain that it's due to sponsorship, as it's almost a given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- The very first world championship seems like excessive detail for the overview, but I respect that other articles have given the history a similar treatment.
- Above comments aside, the opening of the article is excellent, and very readable.
- Qualifying
- The first sentence might be fine with commas instead of semi-colons. (e.g.: "the Snooker Centre in Sheffield, the Romiley Forum in Stockport, and Redwood Lodge in Bristol.")
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "equalise" -> I'm used to seeing the word "tie" or "draw". Is this a term specific to snooker?
- No, I've certainly seen it used for association football. Wiktionary has one of the definitions of equalise/equalize as "(intransitive, sports) To make the scoreline equal by scoring points." Happy to use an alternative, though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but with breaks of 52 and 71 Murphy took the next two frames to progress into the second round." -> "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but Murphy took the next two frames with breaks of 52 and 71, allowing him to progress to the next round."
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "whitewashed" is unclear in its meaning here, as someone less familiar with the game. It probably needs a slight explanation, a blue link, or a less WP:JARGONy synonym.
- We have linked on the first use of the word earlier in that section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- First round
- "bookmakers favourite" -> "bookmakers' favourite" (unless bookmakers favourite is also some sort of jargon)
- It is jargon, I've added some wikilinks which hopefully help. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Higgins led Dean Reynolds, who had taken him to a deciding frame in the second round of the 1982 UK Championship, 5–1 and finished their first session 6–3 ahead. -> the placement of the subphrase between commas here really breaks the flow, and makes this sentence confusing
- Removed that subphrase as it's not really very relevant to this tournament. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's unclear why the glasses are important enough to be worth mentioning?
- I've added some context. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "10–5 despite suffering from flu symptoms" -> "10–5, despite suffering from flu symptoms"
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Second round
- Given that most of the paragraph is about Higgins vs thorne, maybe it's better to add the Taylor vs Webeniuk sentence to the next paragraph, for organization.
- "and after Reardon" -> "and, after Reardon"
- "During the semi-final" -> isn't this the second round?
- Amended as per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Quarter-finals
- "annoyed by referee John Williams who awarded" -> "annoyed by referee John Williams, who awarded"
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Semi-finals
- "Thorburn took the first two frames of the third session, to lead in the match for the first time since he had won the initial two frames." -> am I misunderstanding this, or are the first two frames and initial two frames redundant?
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Final
- "It was Thorburn's third appearance in a World Championship final, after he had been runner-up in 1977 and champion in 1980, and Davis's second, two years after his victory in 1981." -> this is a mouthful and might be more readable as two sentences.
- "Thorburn then won two frames but Davis finished the first day 12–5 ahead" -> "Thorburn then won two frames, but Davis still finished the first day 12–5 ahead" (emphasizing that two frames was still not enough to overcome him, yet)
- There are a lot of quotes in the last paragraph, and I recommend re-evaluating if you need them all. Some could be re-stated as a prose summary. I think the first sentence would be a good candidate, just to make the sentence more readable.
- Amended as per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wrap-up
- The article is quite well written. I was struggling to find prose that was truly less than featured quality, which is a really good sign. The prose doesn't need much more work, in my opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Shooterwalker, thank you so much for picking up a review.:). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Found time to give it a second look over and there is nothing outstanding that would stop this from being featured quality. Happy to support. If you find some time, I have another featured article nomination that could also use a review. No pressure. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
TRM
Comments by Aoba47
- For this part,
and broadcast on BBC television
, I would link to BBC Television to clarify why the television part is necessary. When I first read this part, I did not believe the "television" part was entirely necessary. However, I am an American so I know absolutely nothing about the BBC.- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- For this part,
the bookmakers' favourite
, would it be possible to avoid the disambiguation page?- Removed link, it's a common enough term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- For this part,
Dennis Taylor wore glasses
, the glasses link seems unnecessary to me.- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have a question about the miscarriage sentence. How does this tie into this championship? Did Thorburn or the media discuss this as having some sort of effect on him and how he played? If not, it seems out-of-place here and better suited for the Cliff Thorburn article.
- BennyOnTheLoose might know more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
These are my only comments. I believe the article is well-written and engaging (even to a reader like me who knows absolutely nothing about snooker; I do not mean that in a negative way, but it is just not something I have experience with myself). My comments are focused on the prose. I hope this is helpful. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Covered all bar one, Aoba47. Thanks for the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
History of Burnley F.C.
This article is about the history of English football team Burnley F.C., who have seen the absolute highs and lows. I've created this article a year ago and it has passed the GA process. All comments will be appreciated. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Burnley FC 1890.png no US PD rationale given
- File:The King George V presents the FA Cup 1914.jpg no publication at least 70 years ago is given, so neither of the license tags apply
- Otherwise image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from TRM
Lead
- "of rugby team" which rugby?
- Link professional.
- I may have asked this before, but did going professional really "As a result, the club was able to enter the FA Cup"?
- "League; they were" just "and" instead of the semi-colon and they.
- " a then English record" awkward, perhaps, "setting an English record".
- "top tier of English football" could link to English football league system.
- "with 80,000 inhabitants, the town of Burnley became the smallest to have an English first tier champion" wasn't that the case back in 1920/21 then?
- "non-league" should be "non-League".
Early years (1882–1912)
- "A large majority voted in favour of the proposed change of sport" third time you've said change of sport/code in as many sentences. Maybe just "favour of the proposal".
- "The club secretary George..." long sentence, suggest split. And no need to link general English term committee.
- "arrivals with association football experience" any detail on where they arrived from? Was it a "Lancashire-only" thing or wider?
- "The team played the" which team?
- "blue and white" hyphenate.
- I assume the "first recorded match" was a friendly?
- "February but lost 6–3 against" -> "February, losing 6–3 against"
- "outright—defeating Burnley Ramblers in the final by a scoreline of 2–1[2]—and their reserve" I would split this. "outright, defeating Burnley Ramblers in the final by a scoreline of 2–1. Burnley's reserve..."
- "many Scottish players" easter egg, if they were truly Scottish internationals then say that rather than just imply they were Scottish nationals.
- "regarded as the best footballers" by whom?
- "the BFA redundant" so it subsequently ceased to exist?
- "a club record defeat." at the time or ever?
- "world's first league competition" in any sport?
- "12 founder members and one of the six" twelve for MOS (comparable figures).
- "was re-elected" this probably needs explanation as to why a club who finished ninth needed "re-election".
- " scored a hat-trick but was never called up again" what was the match result?
- "history after they defeated" when, not after.
- "Burnley decided to follow other" -> Burnley followed other
- "two of 30" thirty.
- Could link goalkeeper.
- "resulted in Hillman's suspension" his
- "Alarming performances" in what sense? According to whom?
Starter for you. More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Glory and decline (1912–1946)
- I'm not mad keen on the editorial headings (e.g. "Glory and decline")...
- "became the first ... became the first" repetitive.
- We have an article on Association football during World War I which might be linkable?
- "30 match" hyphenate.
- "Team photograph..." that's a fragment so no full stop.
- "front of over 50,000 supporters. The attendance was later confirmed as 54,775, still" -> "front of 54,775 supporters, still"
- "only 19th the next season," don't need 19th in the pipe.
- "In 1929–30, " or "In".
- "on goal average." loathe as I am to suggest this, I think this needs a footnote explanation.
- "The side's form remained" Burnley's...
- "started to slightly improve again" remove "again".
- "uninspiring" this is POV.
- "him the Football League's youngest ever centre-forward. " still? If not, who beat him? Jason Dozzell??!
Progressive and golden era (1946–1976)
- "war league football" shouldn't that be League?
- "the "Iron Curtain"; the team conceded" -> "the "Iron Curtain", conceding"
- "capable of competing" speculative.
- "were particularly based " why "particularly"?
- "out by Chelsea after four replays" is that some kind of record?!
- Strangely enough it isn't! [5]
- "scored a record four goals " which record?
- "despite missing a" who?
- "£8,000 in 1950, while Elder cost the club £5,000 " I think previously you've inflated all of these kinds of figures.
- Total Football appears to be capitalised.
- "town of Burnley became the smallest to have an English first-tier champion" see earlier comment.
- "the first modern international American football tournament" two things (a) don't like "American football" being in there and (b) what happened?
- "played in European competition for the first time" you should say why, our readers may not make the link between winning an FA Cup and qualifying for Europe.
- "and shared the FA Charity Shield" it's odd for me to read this one last when (traditionally) it's played before the other competitions you've mentioned have even started. And because "sharing" a cup is so unusual, I'd footnote that.
- "newcomers Ipswich Town" well that needs context, they were newly promoted as opposed to "newcomers" I think.
- "the club's Willie Irvine as the league's" feels like it's missing an "ending" or "finishing" or something.
- "Burnley reached the quarter-finals of the 1966–67 Inter-Cities Fairs" how did they qualify for that cup?
- Do you think it should be included in the text? I think it will be rather cluttery. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think our readers would like to know why they suddenly played in this competition. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think it should be included in the text? I think it will be rather cluttery. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- "and the League Cup semi-final in 1968–69." this feels awkwardly tagged on, I would make it another sentence and perhaps mention who knocked them out?
- "Adamson in February 1970. Adamson hailed" repetitive.
- "had often been in the top half of the league table" is that verifiable from the reference? Or do you mean "had often finished in the top half"?
- It should be verifiable from the ref (16; Rundle) as it lists the finishing position and the amount of teams that participated per season. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- What I mean is that you can be anywhere in the table during the season. The ref is just for finishing place. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- It should be verifiable from the ref (16; Rundle) as it lists the finishing position and the amount of teams that participated per season. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- "were invited to play" this is a rarity so probably needs a footnote as to why it wasn't the traditional teams involved.
The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline and near oblivion (1976–1987)
- "Three nondescript seasons" POV.
- "In 42 league games, Burnley won none of the first 16 or the last 16 matches." Feels a bit factoid.
- "relegation zone … the relegation zone" repetitive.
- "Graph showing Burnley’s…" fragment, no full stop.
- "League Cup semi-final" singular? I think all other mentions of "-final" have been plural.
- "young talents" POV
- "finished 21st in each" probably needs context, i.e. how many clubs, was that deep relegation or just the last place to get demoted?
- "only 12 times in 46 league" -> "only 12 of 46 league…" *"into the season's last match" league match.
- " 15,000[k] " the footnote is useful but in the prose the notability of the fact isn’t even noted.
- "Burnley had a new local rival team in Colne Dynamoes, who…" this is kind of introduced without a context, timeframe?
Recovery (1987–2009)
- First sentence says "In 1988, …" compare that to the section heading…
- "Burnley became champions the" reads a little odd, like it was passive, maybe "Burnley won the league" or something.
- "in the final" you should link the final here, not later.
- "followed after one season,[16] but the club" it says "but", is that what you mean? The relegation and the grant weren’t connected.
- "make further progress" relatively meaningless.
- "for a promotion play-off place during" I think you’ve already linked play-offs.
- That's the first time I linked EFL Championship play-offs. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- "immediately became serious contenders" that’s not in the FCHD ref.
- "play-off place by one goal" how? On goals scored after finishing level on points and goal difference? Needs clarification.
- "close to administration again" you link that term here, but you say "again", so it should be made clear in the previous discussion on this that the "administration" was the same thing. *"on-field form had also declined despite" that is not referenced in FCHD.
- "Chairman Barry Kilby owned 51 per cent of the company's shares." And?
- "Another run of poor results… " the following season?
- "The 2008–09 season, Coyle's first full season " season/season repetitive.
- "The side led 3–0 at home" -> "Burnley led…."
Premier League football and back in Europe (2009–present)
- "against defending champions" could link previous season’s PL.
- "Coyle was replaced…" He was replaced.
- "ed with Brian Laws" maybe "former player Brian Laws" since you’re not linking him and the context has gone missing.
- "replaced with Eddie" replaced by.
- "for personal reasons" should probably be in quotes. Wikipedia isn’t saying that.
- "tipped as relegation candidates" by whom?
- "Burnley's top goal scorer" you mean from the previous season?
- "The new signing " more detail, and probably "Their new signing…" *"and were ensured to play" guaranteed.
- "that season's FA Cup competition" no need for "competition".
- "winning more points away than at home" that is interesting but it needs context for it to be here, I know it was reported that they were better travellers but something footnote here.
- "five points away from the European places" five points below the European qualification places.
- "by persons other " persons? Anyone?
- Where did Burnley finish at the end of the 2021 season?
- I don't think it adds much value to include. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to why their most recent league finish isn't included? It's probably the most relevant fact to most readers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it adds much value to include. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Just references to go on the first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Refs
- Ref 9 ISBN inconsistently formatted s those in the General refs.
- Check other ISBNs.
- RSSSF is a website.
- What makes "English Football League Tables" a reliable and high quality source?
- Ref 83. Which "The Herald"?
- BBC Sport is not italicised in our world.
- Ref 133. Which "The Telegraph" is it, The Daily Telegraph?
The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man Thank you very much for this review, I appreciate it. I've addressed your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm happy to support the nomination now, good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man Thank you very much for this review, I appreciate it. I've addressed your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
- "who decided to leave the rugby code" What is a rugby code? Is that the name of the league they were participating in? Perhaps a different word can be used here, or this can be wikilinked.
- With rugby code I meant the sport itself; I've reworded it a bit.
- "one of the twelve founder members" founding members?
- Founder members is British English.
- "That same year saw the team win their first trophy." Move this to the end of the info about the Dr Dean Trophy, as I was confused when it was placed at the beginning.
- Done
- " Burnley director and Football League management committee member Charles Sutcliffe had already proposed the discontinuation of test matches." I'm not sure why this is important for the article and perhaps can be deleted.
- Deleted
- "the side finished in last place in 1902–03 but were re-elected." What does re-elected mean?
- Added a footnote.
- "whose father travelled from Australia to see him play in the final," Why is this important for the reader to know? Since the article is already quite long, I think this can be deleted.
- Removed
- "Jonathan Brown, William Pickering" I assume these are players, but this should be specified in the article.
- Done
- "while Teddy Hodgson died after he contracted a kidney problem." Was this in relation to the war? If not, it can be delete.
- This was in relation to the war.
- "while Page played in attack" What does played in attack mean?
- As a forward/striker; reworded
- "A tied club record 9–0 victory over New Brighton in the next round followed despite Doug Winton missing a penalty." -> In the next round, the club tied their record for largest victory with a score of 9–0 over New Brighton." I don't think this information about missing a penalty is needed.
- Reworded; deleted the penalty part
- "—only McIlroy and Alex Elder had cost a transfer fee. Both players were bought from Northern Irish club Glentoran; McIlroy transferred to Burnley for £8,000 (the equivalent of £276,000 as of 2021[b]) in 1950, while Elder cost the club £5,000 (the equivalent of £117,000 as of 2021[b]) in January 1959. -> "Only two players, McIlroy and Alex Elder, cost a transfer fee, with both players bought from Northern Irish club Glentoran for £8,000 (the equivalent of £276,000 as of 2021[b]) in 1950 and £5,000 (the equivalent of £117,000 as of 2021[b]) in January 1959, respectively." Since this section is long, I want to reduce the number of words wherever I can.
- That's alright; done
- "Although the team faced strong opponents, the players found it hard to take the tournament seriously. The stadium announcer often misinterpreted the referee's decisions, the crowd showed little interest in the games, and every match would end with a countdown "worthy of a space-rocket launching"." I'm not sure this information belongs in this article, as it is more about the tournament than the team. Since this article is already quite large, I recommend deleting it.
- Done
- "Although Burnley were far from a two-man team," I don't think this is necessary and can be deleted.
- Done
- " The impact of the abolition of the maximum wage in 1961, which meant clubs from small towns like Burnley could no longer compete financially with sides from bigger towns and cities, was more damaging." This sentence should be placed before the previous sentence as it happened chronologically first.
- Done
- "fans criticised Bond for signing expensive players, increasing Burnley's debt, and for selling Lee Dixon, Brian Laws and Trevor Steven." -> fans criticised Bond for increasing Burnley's debt by signing expensive players, and for selling Lee Dixon, Brian Laws and Trevor Steven.
- Done
- "For the upcoming 1986–87 campaign," Delete upcoming as redundant wording
- Done
- " they needed a win against Orient, and for Lincoln City to lose and for Torquay United to not win." -> they needed to win against Orient, for Lincoln City to lose their match, and Torquay United to not win theirs."
- Done
- "In front of approximately 35,000 Burnley supporters and a total attendance of 44,806," Why are the attendance numbers important for this match? I think this can be deleted.
- Deleted (although it's still kinda special to outnumber your rivals by such numbers).
- Per MOS:REFERENCES, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." Unless there is a reason for general references to be listed first, they should probably be moved to after the specific references.
- Done
- Per WP:CITEVAR, citation styles should be consistent. If Quelch and Simpson are book sources and are going to be listed in General references, then the other books used in the references section (Butler, Inglis, and Thomas) should have the same citation style and be listed in General.
- The books listed in the general section were used multiple times (multiple refs). Books listed in the specific section are only used once (one ref). Do you think I should include all used books in the general section?
- What is Clarets Mad? If it is a fansite, it might fall under WP:ELNO #11 and should be removed.
- Removed
Those are my thoughts. Please ping after the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Older nominations
The Idiot (album)
This article is about the great punk rocker Iggy Pop's first solo album. However, The Idiot isn't punk rock (mostly). The album was produced by Pop's good friend David Bowie. Both wanted to kick severe drug addictions so they escaped the States and moved to Europe. Due to the much worse state Pop was in, Bowie composed the music, which reflected the German sound of Krautrock that he was becoming interested in at that time, while Pop wrote the lyrics, mostly in response to what Bowie was creating. As a result, you get what I consider a classic album that doesn't represent what Pop was about (he would show that off on the follow-up Lust for Life).
I've essentially built this article from the ground up. I mostly used Bowie's biographies (as most of his goes into great depth regarding this album), but I've made sure to incorporate multiple biographies of Pop's as well. During the GA review, I wanted to make sure the article wasn't too Bowie-centric and the reviewer did not believe it was. I still feel like certain parts are, but the unfortunate truth is Bowie was the dominant creator of this album (many initial reviews commented on this, and Bowie himself admitted it later). Nevertheless, I believe this article is in very good shape to become featured. I firmly believe it's in a much better state than my first FA Hunky Dory was when I nominated that initially. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Happy editing! – zmbro (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Media review
- File:Château d'Hérouville.jpg no evidence that the author died 70+ years ago or that it was published before 1926
- File:Iggy Pop Nightclubbing.ogg needs a stronger fair-use rationale including what specifically you hear in this clip that is related to the overall album themes/critical commentary. (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe Removed the chateau image (primarily added it for more depth), and added more to the audio sample. If it's still not good enough I'll look into deleting that one and adding another one that's more appropriate. – zmbro (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
Addressed comments
|
---|
To be clear, I have never heard of this album or really any of Iggy Pop's music prior to this review. For that reason, I have focused my comments entirely on the prose and I cannot provide any real commentary outside of that. With that being said, I think this article is very well-written and engaging. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
|
- Thank you for addressing everything in my review. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tkbrett
Addressed comments
|
---|
I didn't know you put this up. I'll likely be too busy this weekend but I'll provide comments starting on either Monday or Wednesday. Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a well-prepared article and I don't see anything besides the above. I made several copy edits and smaller fixes on my way through, so make sure you check that those are agreeable. My experience with Iggy is limited to enjoying Lust for Life and Fun House, so I can't comment on this article's comprehensiveness. I wouldn't worry that the article is too focused on Bowie; it makes me think of my fiancé picking out, buying and then wrapping a Christmas gift before asking me to sign the card. Tkbrett (✉) 00:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC) |
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- link studio album Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unless I'm misreading, the lede doesn't cover any of the notable songs, or much about the album itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessarily true, but I can understand where you're coming from. From my experience, the one thing that keeps this album in the "public" conscious is it has the original version of "China Girl", but that's about it. Bowie's own version of "China Girl" is mentioned in the lead but what would you like to see more of? Like the musical and lyrical content specifically? – zmbro (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- It charted - this might need explaination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- Pop and Bowie went their separate ways. - weird simple sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- "He'll never make it to the recording studios in time. Iggy's doomed." - in time for what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't specify. Since studio time was actually booked, I imagine he meant in time being before their studio time was up. Seabrook states that they had one day in the studio but after Pop failed to show up on the second Bowie scrapped the project, so that's my best guess regarding in time. What do you think the best course of action here is?; because in my opinion it's a really good quote. – zmbro (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pop's stints in rehab were unsuccessful, and by 1976, he was reaching an all-time low. - probably needs a direct cite and [according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- "He never showed bad form. All the shit I know, that's let me take care of myself, basically I learned traveling with Bowie on the Station to Station tour." - I'm not sure we gleam much here we couldn't put into our own words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- There were further talks of Pop recording a solo album with Bowie as producer; Bowie and guitarist Carlos Alomar had written a new song, titled "Sister Midnight", and offered it to Pop; Bowie occasionally performed it live on the tour - I'm not sure semi-colons are right here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Poor Jim, in a way, became a guinea pig - am I assuming Pop's real name is Jim? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- His real name is James Osterberg and Jim is a nickname of that so yes. – zmbro (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- How I'd the reader to know this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be better to have a reference column for the charts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's a few things above that probably need looking into, but it's in fine shape. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski Responded to all queries. Thanks for the comments! – zmbro (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Z1720
Addressed comments
|
---|
Non-expert prose review.
Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are all responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
|
Coordinator note
zmbro, while this is your second FAC it seems that the first didn't get the usual first-timer's spot check - do correct me if I am wrong about this. So I would like to see one for this article and have added this to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild If I recall correctly, source reviewing for Hunky Dory was done via the numerous editors that voiced their support in promoting (it wasn't in its own section). But yes that sounds perfectly fine with me. Like you said I'm still pretty new to FAC so if I ever do anything wrong please do not hesitate to say so. – zmbro (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi guys, FWIW I reviewed Hunky Dory at GAN and treated it as a potential FAC so conducted a spotcheck of several sources. From memory there were some instances of close paraphrasing but little or no inaccurate usage, and ultimately I was satisfied with the spotcheck. If I'd had the time to complete a review of the article at FAC I'd have probably mentioned this then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian, that covers it then. I'll remove the note from Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi guys, FWIW I reviewed Hunky Dory at GAN and treated it as a potential FAC so conducted a spotcheck of several sources. From memory there were some instances of close paraphrasing but little or no inaccurate usage, and ultimately I was satisfied with the spotcheck. If I'd had the time to complete a review of the article at FAC I'd have probably mentioned this then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
- "Krautrock, a genre Bowie would fully experiment with on Low" - source?
- As per WP:ALLMUSIC, this source is of questionable reliability for biographical details
- Hmm. Per WP:RSMUSIC both biographies and reviews are reliable, but also gives the genres as unreliable. I'll see what I can find. – zmbro (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- What makes Vinyl District a high-quality reliable source? Totally Stockholm? Creem? Blender? Stereogum? Repeater? Jawbone?
- I asked about Vinyl District here, but the two editors that responded said yes and no. So since we're unsure I'll remove it – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at it now, Totally Stockholm looks like a website guide to the city of Stockholm, which to me doesn't scream as reliable for something like this. Removed that – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- A discussion here calls Creem reliable, and based on my research, it had a ton of editorial oversight, lots of different writers, and was one of the most popular music magazines in the US during its run. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Blender is listed as reliable under WP:RSMUSIC – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- That table links to a 2009 discussion that is not about Blender. Why is it listed as being reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Per the discussions here and here, it appears other editors have identified Stereogum as reliable. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see strong rationales for reliability in those discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I started a new discussion at WPAlbums; hopefully we can get a definitive answer. – zmbro (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking good so far. – zmbro (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The publisher of a book shouldn't determine whether a book or reliable or not (in this instance). In The Complete David Bowie, Nicholas Pegg praises Chris O'Leary's Rebel Rebel (Ashes to Ashes had yet to be published), but he cites O'Leary as "a significant contributor to the field of Bowieology" and recognizes him as a reliable biographer, so I have no doubt what he states is reliable. Pegg furthermore cites Seabrook's book Bowie in Berlin as "packed with insight, offering a thorough, perceptive and well written account of Bowie's 1976–1979 period." With this being said I also fully trust Seabrook as a source. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a reason to cite two different editions of Buckley? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I own the 2005 edition. I believe when I was expanding I was able to find most of the same info (+ more) in the 2005 edition but couldn't find other bits of info sourced in the 1999 edition. I can do a run-through of the 2005 edition later but I agree with you I don't like using two different versions either. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Manganese, Minnesota
This article is about Manganese, Minnesota, one of a handful of small mining communities on the Cuyuna Iron Range of north-central Minnesota, and the only one to be abandoned. Manganese was an incorporated community, platted and quickly settled in what was a new iron rush to Minnesota's Cuyuna Range. Manganese boomed quickly, then suffered a slow demise after World War I, existing just over 48 years before it was completely abandoned. A lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. Despite the fact that Manganese was an incorporated community, very few photographs are know to exist or survive. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is loosely modeled after the featured article Pithole, Pennsylvania. Comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria now that it has been suitably sourced. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- How do you know that the File:School Teacher Anna Dugan and Manganese Minnesota Depot.jpg was "First published May 8th, 1985 in the Brainerd Dispatch"? And if so, how do you know the newspaper was not copyrighted?
- This is one of four original photos of Manganese held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network. It was used in the article "Manganese Revisted" by the Brainerd Dispatch, published on May 8th, 1985. Regrettably, there is no current online access to this particular article. However, even if the article is copyrighted by the Brainerd Dispatch, the photo is not. It should be noted that the photo is of low resolution from a digital capture and enlargement of the published photo. It can be stated definitively that the photo is pre-1930, but it cannot be demonstrated that it was pre-1923 and in the public domain. The photographer is unknown. However, if the photograph is post-1923, the copyright would still be held by the photographer even if deceased. It is not known how the original photo was acquired by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, but the copyright was not transferred from the photographer. I have uploaded this file directly to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use.
- File:Manganese State Bank Postal Cover and Cancellation 1920.jpg: Was this work published before 1926 according to the legal definition? Then it does not matter who scanned it.
- Thank you for the enlightenment; now I understand. The legal definition states, "generally publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." Applying that definition, then the image was published before 1926 (when it was post-marked on August 9th, 1920). Consequently, the photo of the image by Jim Forte is not a creative act and does not impart copyright since the image lacks originality, and the original item is old enough to be in the public domain by virtue of it's age. I have changed the license tag for the image to reflect this.
- File:Cuyuna.jpg and File:Stratigraphy of the main units of the Cuyuna North range.png how do I verify that the copyright holder released under a free license?
- You but have to click on the link to the article in the Canadian Minerologist: https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf. The authors are specifically cited, but they are publishing on behalf of the Minnesota Geological Survey. All works of the Minnesota Geological Survey are in the public domain, with the appropriate copyright tag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags.
- OK, I understand what you're trying to say here, but is there any way I can confirm that this particular image has been released to public domain by MGS? Right now it's not clear to me whether MGS released all images that they have copyright to or just some of them. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the MGS and am awaiting a response with regard to this graphic. DrGregMN (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Minnesota Geological Survey responded with a similar free use graphic. The previous graphic has been replaced with this. The problem is that the graphic is longer than the previous one. I've compressed the image as much as possible while trying to keep the text legible. I hope this is acceptable. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, but there should either be a way for any reader to confirm that this paper and/or this specific image is in the public domain, or else you should forward the email to OTRS and allow them to verify the permissions. Although some charts are too simple to be copyrighted, this one is not. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Minnesota Geological Survey responded with a similar free use graphic. The previous graphic has been replaced with this. The problem is that the graphic is longer than the previous one. I've compressed the image as much as possible while trying to keep the text legible. I hope this is acceptable. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the MGS and am awaiting a response with regard to this graphic. DrGregMN (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I understand what you're trying to say here, but is there any way I can confirm that this particular image has been released to public domain by MGS? Right now it's not clear to me whether MGS released all images that they have copyright to or just some of them. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- The permissions by Aaron Hautala, administrator of the website Cuyuna.com requesting attribution, can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permission_part_1.jpg and here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permission_part_2.jpg. The permissions should be sufficient. If they are not, I can ask the photographer if he would be willing to upload this image to a creative commons photo sharing site.
- OK, I've asked another editor about this as I'm unsure. You had no way of knowing this but WP:OTRS is the preferred way to show that images are released by their copyright holder. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the statement doesn't make it clear what type of license (if any) the photograph is to be released under, [6] In order to use this photo I think you would have to follow the steps at Commons in order to make sure that it's freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I will ask the photographer if he is willing to upload to a creative commons photo sharing site. Stay tuned. DrGregMN (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the photographer. He has refused to upload the image to a creative commons photo sharing site, stating "I can't offer full rights to my photography to the world at large." Understandable. I respect copyright, but sometimes it can be a real pain. However, it makes no sense to me why the Wikimedia Commons would have a license tag for "attribution" when you have the necessary permissions to use the image if everything needs to be "feely licensed": the license tag for attribution should be removed from the Wikimedia Commons if it can't be used. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that copyright is a pain, but what can we do? We risk legal prosecution if we are careless here. Concerning the attribution tag, it says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.". This is basically the free licence. If the photographer disagrees with this, the tag was placed by mistake, if I understand the case correctly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the photographer. He has refused to upload the image to a creative commons photo sharing site, stating "I can't offer full rights to my photography to the world at large." Understandable. I respect copyright, but sometimes it can be a real pain. However, it makes no sense to me why the Wikimedia Commons would have a license tag for "attribution" when you have the necessary permissions to use the image if everything needs to be "feely licensed": the license tag for attribution should be removed from the Wikimedia Commons if it can't be used. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I will ask the photographer if he is willing to upload to a creative commons photo sharing site. Stay tuned. DrGregMN (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the statement doesn't make it clear what type of license (if any) the photograph is to be released under, [6] In order to use this photo I think you would have to follow the steps at Commons in order to make sure that it's freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I've asked another editor about this as I'm unsure. You had no way of knowing this but WP:OTRS is the preferred way to show that images are released by their copyright holder. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You but have to click on the link to the article in the Canadian Minerologist: https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf. The authors are specifically cited, but they are publishing on behalf of the Minnesota Geological Survey. All works of the Minnesota Geological Survey are in the public domain, with the appropriate copyright tag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags.
- Other image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- "The Minnesota Territorial Legislature enacted the creation of Crow Wing County on May 23, 1857" - don't see this claim at the cited link
- You are correct! I swear it was there before. The Wikipedia page Crow Wing County, Minnesota also cites this as a source. As I navigate to it today, the page has changed and now has a disclaimer. This has now been sourced with a different reference.
- What makes LakesnWoods a high-quality reliable source? Jim Forte? American-Rails? Dan West? Ghost Town USA? Wikimapia? Porter GeoConsultancy? Map Developers? Minnesota Brown? Sutherland?
- The history of the communities on the LakesnWoods website is accurate, but I have deleted this source and replaced it with a different reference.
- Jim Forte was a secondary source for the post office at Manganese and has been deleted (the source information is already cited in his photo).
- The American-Rails website contains accurate information, but this source has been deleted and replaced with a different reference.
- Dan West actually cites two articles from the Brainerd Dispatch regarding the Manganese Depot: I contacted the Crow Wing County Historical Society to track them down; one of these articles is now cited in place of Dan West.
- Ghost Towns USA was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
- Wikimapia was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
- The information in the Porter GeoConsultancy summary was accurate and like Dan West, cited several sources: I tracked down the relevant source to this article and cited it in place of Porter GeoConsultancy.
- Map Developers is a Google Maps distance calculator and does not need to be sourced. Removed.
- Minnesota Brown was a corroborating source and was eliminated.
- Sutherland is a published doctoral dissertation and absolutely can be cited. The abstract, recommended citation and PDF link to the entire dissertation can be found here: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etdr/110/.
- Fn15: what kind of source is this, and how would it be accessed?
- Not everything that is sourced has an online access. This is especially true of historical information. The information cited is archival in nature held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, in Crosby, Minnesota. One would have to travel to Crosby in order to examine the archival material for themselves. A good example can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manganese,_Minnesota#/media/File:Manganese_Lots.jpg. This is a newspaper clipping that is a part of the archival material related to Manganese at the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network: I have no idea what paper it is from, what the date for this advertisement is, or what page it was on, but that does not mean it's not sourceable. Wikipedia has a citation template "Cite Archive" specifically for this purpose which may be found here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_archive, and the acceptable citation where the author of a work cannot be identified to use "Anon" in place of the authors name. Even the links cited to the Minnesota Historical Society only show that the archives exist, but the archives cannot be accessed directly online: you would still need to make a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to access the material.
- I'm not objecting to the use of an offline source, but am trying to get a better understanding of the nature of this one in particular: are these unpublished records? All newspaper clippings? Some other kind of documents? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you asked. Many documents, and not just newpaper clippings. They have a record of the deeds for the lots of the original homeowners, the original bond that was issued for the waterworks project, a letter of welcome from the village officers to new residents of Manganese, election results, four (and only four) photos of the community, letters from former residents, as well as newspaper clippings and journal articles which were able to be sourced and cited separately for this article.
- Okay. Can we get a little more clarity on what is being cited for what? A newspaper clipping versus a personal letter are very different kinds of sources. Also, how has Wp:PSTS been taken into account? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you asked. Many documents, and not just newpaper clippings. They have a record of the deeds for the lots of the original homeowners, the original bond that was issued for the waterworks project, a letter of welcome from the village officers to new residents of Manganese, election results, four (and only four) photos of the community, letters from former residents, as well as newspaper clippings and journal articles which were able to be sourced and cited separately for this article.
- I'm not objecting to the use of an offline source, but am trying to get a better understanding of the nature of this one in particular: are these unpublished records? All newspaper clippings? Some other kind of documents? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not everything that is sourced has an online access. This is especially true of historical information. The information cited is archival in nature held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, in Crosby, Minnesota. One would have to travel to Crosby in order to examine the archival material for themselves. A good example can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manganese,_Minnesota#/media/File:Manganese_Lots.jpg. This is a newspaper clipping that is a part of the archival material related to Manganese at the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network: I have no idea what paper it is from, what the date for this advertisement is, or what page it was on, but that does not mean it's not sourceable. Wikipedia has a citation template "Cite Archive" specifically for this purpose which may be found here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_archive, and the acceptable citation where the author of a work cannot be identified to use "Anon" in place of the authors name. Even the links cited to the Minnesota Historical Society only show that the archives exist, but the archives cannot be accessed directly online: you would still need to make a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to access the material.
- Newspaper names should be italicized
- Fixed
- Location names though should not be italicized - eg Brainerd Dispatch (MN). Also still some missing italics, eg City Pages.
- Fixed
- Nope, still issues here - eg Brainerd Dispatch (MN). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Location names though should not be italicized - eg Brainerd Dispatch (MN). Also still some missing italics, eg City Pages.
- Fixed
- FN28: page?
- Page 5. Fixed
- See MOS:POSTABBR
- Done and fixed
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
- Fixed
- Be consistent in when you include publication location
- Fixed
- FN36: date doesn't match source
- Fixed
- Be consistent in how citations to reports are formatted
- Fixed
- Still some inconsistencies here - compare for example FNs 49 and 68. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Still some inconsistencies here - compare for example FNs 49 and 68. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Don't repeat publisher in author field
- Fixed
Oppose due to concerns about sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Nikkimaria. Your criticims make me a better editor. Hopefully I have satisfactorily addressed all of the citation issues! DrGregMN (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Make sure page ranges consistently use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thank you, Nikkimaria!
Jens
- Manganese was one of the last of the Cuyuna Range communities to be established, and named after the mineral located in abundance near the town – link to the mineral?
- Done, although the community etymology is already linked in the infobox.
- Trommald formation – has to be upper case, since these formations are formal names: Trommald Formation.
- Done
- the main ore-producing unit – link to geological formation?
- Done
- The Trommald formation and adjacent Emily district – hmm, a formation is not a region, it is a rock unit, and the lateral extent of such units is often much larger than the part that is cropping out at the surface. Maybe name the other formation in that district instead?
- The literature calls it the Emily district (or Emily District if you prefer). See https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf, page 591 as an example.
- I see, it is a geologic unit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The literature calls it the Emily district (or Emily District if you prefer). See https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf, page 591 as an example.
- No need for citations in the lead generally, since everything stated in the lead should appear in the main text in any case.
- There is nothing specific with regard to citations in the lead section of an article. I tend to cite things as they are first mentioned, but if you would prefer they be moved to the body of the article, that can be done.
- Per convention, we only give the citations in the main text, with few exceptions. This makes sense, since abstracts of scientific papers also don't have citations. But more importantly, we need to repeat the citation each time we repeat the cited info. This is important since verification may be difficult otherwise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing specific with regard to citations in the lead section of an article. I tend to cite things as they are first mentioned, but if you would prefer they be moved to the body of the article, that can be done.
- all of which collapsed at some point due to the heavy clay soils – but "heavy" is not a reason why a well collapses? I guess it is because the clay flows over time?
- Possibly, but I am not a geologist and subject to conjecture. I can only cite (without copyvio) what is in the reference material I have available.
- OK, thinking about it, there is more than one way to interpret it anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I am not a geologist and subject to conjecture. I can only cite (without copyvio) what is in the reference material I have available.
- World War I – link in main text at first mention
- Done
- As mining operations began to shut down, residents gradually started moving their homes out of town for relocation to other communities in the region.[43] – This was already stated.
- Sentences combined.
- Very few photos of Manganese are known to exist. Never a wealthy community, residents had no money for cameras, a luxury item during the Depression.[33] – Would expect this at the end of the paragraph, because it does not seem to belong within the chronology.
- Actually, I prefer to leave this sentence where it is because it does make chronological sense. The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929 and recovery didn't occur until the advent of World War II, when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (although some economists believe recovery started as early as 1937). The Methodist church at Manganese was founded in 1938, so this sentence fits neatly in between dates.
- OK. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I prefer to leave this sentence where it is because it does make chronological sense. The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929 and recovery didn't occur until the advent of World War II, when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (although some economists believe recovery started as early as 1937). The Methodist church at Manganese was founded in 1938, so this sentence fits neatly in between dates.
- site was consumed by the steady growth of natural vegetation – sounds repetitive; you already stated that plants overgrew the site.
- Sentences combined.
- which opened in June 2011[70] and have been a tourism asset since the last manganiferous ore was shipped from the Cuyuna Range in 1984. – How can they be a tourism asset since 1984 when they only opened in 2011? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've reworded this sentence so they are more appropriately linked.
- Thank you, Jens Lallensack. Hopefully I have addressed all of your comments satisfactorily! DrGregMN (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator note
Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has only picked up one general review. Unless there is a little further interest oby the three week mark I am afraid that it is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "The community was composed of many immigrants who had fled the various natural disasters, and the social and political upheavals in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries before the onset of World War I." This sentence reads a bit oddly to me. Maybe "The community was composed of immigrants who had fled natural disasters and social and political upheavals in Europe during the decades before World War I."
- It does read a bit oddly. I like your suggestion better. Changed.
- You say there was a steady decline after WWI, but also 600 around 1919 and 183 in 1920. This does not seem right.
- It may not seem right, but it is true. Manganese peaked around 600 in 1919, and in the 1920 census dropped to 183 showing steady decline in each census thereafter.
- I think you need to clarify that it was a sharp drop followed by a steady decline. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified. First sentence modified in last paragraph of Establishment and community to read After the World War I armistice was signed, the demand for manganiferous ore decreased, and Manganese experienced a sharp drop in population from its peak of nearly 600 in 1919 to 183 in 1920. The last sentence of this paragraph already explains how the remaining population gradually started moving out of town. DrGregMN (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "while surveyor and mining engineer Cuyler Adams was exploring the area". When? You say that there was test drilling 15 years later, but you should still give the year of exploration.
- Done
- "the new town was touted as the "Hibbing of the Cuyuna Range"". Hibbing should be explained.
- Done, with references
- "two hotels, a bank, two grocery stores, two butcher shops, a lumber yard, a bakery, a livery stable, a barbershop, a pool room, a show hall, a dog pound, and a two-room school" No bars?
- You would think, right? The only bar mentioned in any of the cited sources was the one at the Fitger hotel. It could be because prohibition took effect in the United States in 1920 and was not repealed until 1933 during the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history hitting a community already in decline.
- "Children attended school in Manganese through the eighth grade" For the benefit of non-US readers, it would be helpful to give the age of eighth graders.
- Done
- "Notices sent to the last known village officers were refused." What does this mean?
- Clarified
- "There is a local push to "scram" the stockpiles of ore found in the old waste rock of the Cuyuna Iron Range." What does scram mean?
- Probably better cited than to try and explain this in the article. I have done this.
- It still needs explanation as the term is so obscure. Citing is for providing evidence that a statement is correct, not explaining what it means. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. New sentence now reads This mining process is significantly less invasive than traditional blasting and crushing, producing iron ore and iron ore concentrates from previously developed waste rock stockpiles, tailings basins, open pit or underground mines on land not previously affected by mining. DrGregMN (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks fine, just minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Dudley Miles! Does that mean you Support on prose? DrGregMN (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Dudley Miles! Does that mean you Support on prose? DrGregMN (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Edwininlondon
Looks interesting. I'll do a prose review tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The area around Manganese, and modern-day Crow Wing County --> Crow Wing County should be linked. Doesn't matter that you already linked it in the lead. Same for others like Cuyuna Range
- Done
- was initially inhabited --> when was this?
- Done
- In 1855, a treaty between the Ojibwe and the U.S. Government, signed by chief Hole in the Day in what was then Minnesota Territory, secured Ojibwe hunting and fishing rights while ceding land which would become the Cuyuna Range to European-Americans looking to build new settlements in the region. --> I found this long sentence difficult to parse.
- Broke into two separate sentences. Better?
- Yes
- The discovery of the Cuyuna Iron Range was an accident, --> when was this?
- Fixed per previous comments from Dudley Miles
- was touted as the "Hibbing of the Cuyuna Range" --> a bit of an explanation here would be good
- Fixed per previous comments from Dudley Miles
- Not sure about this. I guess the core message is "this town is growing fast because of iron just like Hibbing over in the Mesabi Range". It seems to me that the high school reference is a bit of a distraction, mostly because the Manganese wealth is not yet mentioned, that's in the next paragraph. Unless that was key to the analogy of course. Then the current size of Hibbing's population is brought up as well ("remains"), another distraction I think because we are explaining why the nickname was created 100 years ago. Lastly, the "was once" should be made more specific, ideally dating back to the time of Manganese's foundation. So I'd favour something along the lines of "Hibbing, founded in xxx and by 1915 the biggest mining town of the Mesabi Range with a population of 20,000, was at the time called the "Iron Ore Capital of the World." (provided my assumptions are correct + there are sources to back this up of course)
- [28][9][29] --> usually the references are given in ascending order
- Fixed
More to come, hopefully soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Edwininlondon! I patiently await your further comments. DrGregMN (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, here is a bit more:
- The Milford accident feels a bit out of place. It takes place in 1924. By 1920 the population is already way down. I don't think that the Harry Hosford connection warrants moving the Milford description up. Better to stay in proper chronological order I think.
- I would prefer to leave this sentence where it is because it does make chronologic sense. This section specifically talks about the community, which should include notable persons. World War I ended with the armistice in 1918. The citation for the combined payrolls of the mines are from 1920. The citizens from Manganese that served (past tense) in World War I include Harry Hosford (the cited military records date 1918-1920), who was one of the few survivors of the Milford Mine disaster of 1924, where many Manganese citizens were empolyed.
- OK
- It is not possible to determine the mineral content in the iron formation from top to bottom in any one location due to the great diversity of ore textures and the shape of the ore bodies. --> I struggle with this. I know nothing about geology, but I guess quite a few readers will be like me. Why is it not possible? Can I not just drill a hole to the bottom and examine the mineral content in what I dig up?
- I'm not a geologist either, and I know how difficult it can be to wrap your head around all of the information. Reading all of the literature regarding Cuyuna Range geology has been an education for me. I've added another sentence with citations which I hope is a sufficient explaination.
- Page 20 says "it has not been possible to determine the original mineral content .." That I can understand. Past tense + original. But without original and in present tense it still is puzzling to me.
- 0.5 to 15 percent manganese, with local areas of manganese as high as 50 percent. --> So really it varies from 0.5 to 50?
- I am paraphrasing the cited literature here, but your criticism is a good one. Local areas of manganese are as high as 50% (or ferruginous manganese ore where the concentration of manganese is higher than the iron, as in the case of the Algoma mine). It really does vary from 0.5% to 50 %. Sentence changed.
- The ores contained on average about 43% iron and 10% manganese --> why is this not closer to the sentence about the variation?
- Sentence moved.
- Is boon a good word choice for WP? I'm not a native speaker, so just checking
- Wording changed.
- which opened in June 2011[68] and have been an economic boon to the region since the last manganiferous ore was shipped from the Cuyuna Range in 1984 --> that ending is bit odd. It opened in 2011 so why mention 1984? Is it because it is the first positive thing economic-wise since 1984?
- Yes. Sentence changed with added reference.
That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- My humble thanks for your many comments and criticisms, Edwininlondon! DrGregMN (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Just two open issues to address and then we're there. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a Yugoslav ship that was built just before WWII as a royal yacht, and intended to be used as a patrol boat, escort or guard ship in wartime. She was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and served in various roles under their flag until 1943, including for training anti-submarine warfare crew. Returned to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile, she was refitted and used as a tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats in the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. Taken over by the Partisans, she continued to serve in the Yugoslav Navy until the late 1970s. The article recently passed Milhist ACR after I secured copies of two new books on the Royal Yugoslav Navy and naval actions in the Adriatic in WWII which allowed me to expand the article to the point that I now think it is comprehensive enough to meet the FA criteria. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Could the namesake information in the infobox be elaborated to reflect what's in the text?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Any idea why the measurements vary between sources?
- No, it happens though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Be consistent in if and how publication location is presented
- Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean dropping England from London, or what? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- You've got locations for all sources but Niehorster; some locations include city and some are at the country level; some locations include country while others include a subnational entity. I'm looking for a consistent rule for whether locations are included (eg if you're not including it for Niehorster because it's a web source, it shouldn't be there for Miramar either), and then a consistent rule on what level and type of location detail is included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- You've got locations for all sources but Niehorster; some locations include city and some are at the country level; some locations include country while others include a subnational entity. I'm looking for a consistent rule for whether locations are included (eg if you're not including it for Niehorster because it's a web source, it shouldn't be there for Miramar either), and then a consistent rule on what level and type of location detail is included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean dropping England from London, or what? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don't duplicate between publisher and author fields
- Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- What makes Leo Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Niehorster has a PhD and is a published author (with The Military Press, a reliable military book publisher in the UK) on orders of battle. I've used him in a couple of dozen FAs/FLs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
One query, Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking a look, as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
I could find remarkably little to pick at when I reviewed this for ACR, now it is at FAC I shall recuse and try harder.
- "post-World War II". All entries in the infobox should commence with an upper case letter.
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "she was pressed into service as the Admiralty yacht". Perhaps you could tell readers, or at least me, what the function of the Admiralty yacht. (And the upper case A with the lower case y seems to beg a couple of questions.)
- dropped the A (as it can cause confusion because the Admiralty is usually associated with the British Royal Navy), and added a short explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Re-armed" implies that at some point she had been disarmed? If so, should it not be mentioned?
- reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "a flotilla of motor gunboats that had been loaned to the Yugoslav Royal Navy-in-exile." By?
- Complicated, they were US-built ones leased by the Brits then loaned to the Yugoslavs. Not sure that is needed, so just went with the Royal Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "as a naval yacht". Without even a link to help us out, what the devil is a naval yacht?
- similar to an admiralty yacht, but for wider use, but Armed yacht is close, so linked that and tweaked the wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Anchored off Krtole within the bay, the commander-in-chief of the fleet, Rear Admiral Emil Domainko, was summoned to meet with the Italian general whose troops had captured Kotor." The chronological flow would be improved if we were told about the Italian capture of Kotor before Domainko's movements.
- Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "She was put into service with the Regia Marina ..." Possibly start a new paragraph here?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Zagabria was then attached to the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) school". Any idea when? Even very roughly.
- Great question, sadly the source is quite vague on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
And that trivia is all I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Pendright
@Peacemaker67: A few nitpickers for you! Pendright (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Lead:
- She was then used to train anti-submarine warfare specialists out of the naval base at La Spezia
- out of -> "from" might be more conventional
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- out of -> "from" might be more conventional
Background:
- Beli Orao was ordered from Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico (CRDA) at Trieste in Italy in 1938, originally as a guard ship for the Yugoslav Financial Guard. During her construction, the
- Might drop the first in and give Trieste, Italy, its normal punctuation
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Could add "built" after originally
- Went with something else, but thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- The final design gave her the appearance of a motor yacht or fast passenger ship.[3]
- When one compares Beli Orao with the passenger ship linked, the word "appearance" seems a stretch
- changed to Motor ship, but there isn't a perfect link for this AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- When one compares Beli Orao with the passenger ship linked, the word "appearance" seems a stretch
- The size of her crew is unknown.[1]
- Might this be good info for the Infobox?
- Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Might this be good info for the Infobox?
Service:
- After the Italians captured Kotor, the commander-in-chief of the fleet, Rear Admiral Emil Domainko, who was aboard Beli Orao anchored off Krtole within the bay, was summoned to meet with the Italian general at Kotor.[7
- the Italian general -> Wouldn't it be "an" Italian general, since no specific general has been named?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- the Italian general -> Wouldn't it be "an" Italian general, since no specific general has been named?
- During her service with the Italians her two 40 mm guns were replaced by two Oerlikon 20 mm (0.79 in) L/70 guns.
- consider repllacing one "her"
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- "by" two or "with" two?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Until the Italian armistice with the Allies in September 1943, she was used to train ASW specialist crew for corvettes, destroyers and torpedo boats.
- Is it "a" specialist crew, or specilist crews?
- Just cut it down to ASW specialists. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is it "a" specialist crew, or specilist crews?
- In 1944 and 1945, she was stationed at Malta,[3] where the British Royal Navy purged the remaining "royalists" from the flotilla, replacing those personnel with politically reliable crew loyal to the Yugoslav Communist Party-led Yugoslav Partisans.
- The comma after Malta does not fit well with the flow or meaning of the sentence, as I read it
- Deleted.
- The comma after Malta does not fit well with the flow or meaning of the sentence, as I read it
Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks as always, Pendright! See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Suporting - Regards @Peacemaker67:
- Pendright (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
- "Her guns were replaced" Guns were replaced with what? Was this an upgrade to make her a more powerful ship?
- Actually less powerful, the 40 mm guns were replaced with 20 mm. The latter were the Italians preferred anti-aircraft guns for which they had plentiful ammunition. Ammunition for the original ones was limited to what had been captured during the invasion, as they weren't made by the Italians. Have tweaked the wording, see what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1978, she was still in service as a yacht, but was scrapped soon after." -> Feels a little awkward. Was she scrapped in 1978? If so, maybe "She remained in service as a yacht until 1978, when she was scrapped."
- Unfortunately it isn't completely clear that she was scrapped in 1978, it might have been a year or two later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do the sources say that it is unclear when she was scrapped? Perhaps this should be included in the article. If this is OR because the sources don't really say anything about it, then leave as-is. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- It would be OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do the sources say that it is unclear when she was scrapped? Perhaps this should be included in the article. If this is OR because the sources don't really say anything about it, then leave as-is. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it isn't completely clear that she was scrapped in 1978, it might have been a year or two later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Orao's length overall, both 60.45 metres" put "and both 60.45 metres"?
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "She had a standard displacement of 567 tonnes (558 long tons),[1][2] and displaced around 660 t (650 long tons) at full load.[1][2]" If you are citing the same sources, I don't think the references after the comma are necessary.
- Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "was laid down on 23 December 1938," laid down is a technical term and should be wikilinked, perhaps to keel laying?
- Not sure how I missed that, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "When the fleet flagship, the obsolete light cruiser Dalmacija, was tasked to participate in an attack against the Italian enclave of Zara, the fleet staff transferred to Beli Orao." The comma are creating a choppy prose. Maybe, "The fleet staff of the obsolete light cruiser Dalmacija transferred to Beli Orao when the former was tasked to participate in an attack against the Italian enclave of Zara."
- Reduced commas by restructuring the sentence, see what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Triste is listed as a builder in the infobox. Originally I thought this was a company, but its actually the name of an Italian city. Did the city help fund/build this ship? If so, their contribution should be mentioned in the body and if not, it should probably be removed from this section.
- It is differentiating it from the CDRA shipyards in other ports, ie it was built in the one at Trieste. I have done this with shipbuilders with multiple yards in previous FAs, but if you insist, I could remove it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe reword to: Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico in Trieste? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe reword to: Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico in Trieste? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is differentiating it from the CDRA shipyards in other ports, ie it was built in the one at Trieste. I have done this with shipbuilders with multiple yards in previous FAs, but if you insist, I could remove it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That's all from me. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- All addressed, Z1720. Thanks very much for taking a look. Let me know what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have addressed your tweaks. Thanks again, Z1720! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: this one has three supports (one non-Milhist) and image and source reviews. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
2020 FA Cup Final
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
World's oldest association football cup competition, the 2020 edition, notable for 0 fans (thanks COVID), a red card, a penalty, and one side ending with nine players. Classic stuff. As ever, I'll be working my socks off to address any and all actionable concerns raised here and thanks in advance for your time and energy. Also, thanks to Anarchyte who gave the article a good going-over at GAN, always appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- Seeing some formatting inconsistencies - for example sometimes BBC Sport is wikilinked and italicized, and sometimes neither. Please check throughout.
- I found one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- FN20 is missing author
- Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- FN21 is missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Heads Up FA Cup Final - now, maybe pedantic, but surely it's still the 2020 Heads Up FA Cup Final
- No, according to official sources, the year wasn't part of the formal retitling. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Football Association Challenge Cup - our article is at FA Cup, so probably no need to state the full name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- We've gone round this buoy a few times, and it was the only solution which spelt out Football Association before using the FA initialism, so I'm okay with it, because after all, it is factually correct. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I feel the second para is small enough it could be merged into the first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Horses for courses, but no problem. The idea was one para for "pre-match" one for "match" and one for "post-match". But merged, as it's no skin off my nose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think even a small background as to how the teams reached the final is suitable, even if it's just who they beat in the semi-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added semi-final oppos into lead. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead after five minutes from close range - I feel like we could say "Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead after five minutes, after he scored from close range" and then have the second goal as a new sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like your suggested prose as it quickly repeats the use of "after". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- How about ""Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead in the sith minute, after he scored from close range"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, some minor adjustments there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- How about ""Christian Pulisic gave Chelsea the lead in the sith minute, after he scored from close range"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like your suggested prose as it quickly repeats the use of "after". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I know Man of the match is often down to the broadcasters, and can change. The only source I can see for this is the BBC one - is there an official FA source to confirm they also see him as the MOTM? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Man of the match used to be that way but no longer. I can't see any official sources with it, perhaps you can help? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The match was broadcast live on both BT Sport and BBC; - just in the UK, right? I'm sure DAZN have rights somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- I think a vague explaination that Premier League teams get a bye to the third round would be helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well it is already stated that they don't enter the competition until the third round. I'm not sure what more you'd like to have explained in this specific article? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Arsenal played Premier League side Manchester City, the FA Cup holders - I generally prefer "defending champion" to holders. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both are interchangeable though, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The two finalists share a London derby rivalry. - this feels a bit like a throwaway, could do with expanding Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added a bit. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 2018's 1–0 win over Manchester United - is it right to have 2018's? That feels wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Before 2020's final, Arsenal's 13 FA Cup wins was a record - maybe "Arsenal's 13 FA Cup wins was the most by a team until that point". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both sides adopted a 3–4–3 formation. Aubameyang captained Arsenal; César Azpilicueta captained Chelsea - I feel like two sentences is overkill, could merge Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pulisic. Pulisic Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tweaked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dived the wrong way - wrong direction. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tweaked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whilst carrying the trophy to his team before its formal lifting, Aubameyang dropped the cup and the base - from what I can tell, and what I remember from the event, the cup was made in two parts, so he didn't exactly drop it, more that he didn't know it came apart and dropped the bottom half. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- 27 seconds into the source there you'll see he dropped both parts. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski thanks for the comments, sorry for the delay in getting onto them, let me know if there's anything else to address. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Placeholder by Amakuru
I will to a full review on this once Lee is done with his, I think, to avoid overlap. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm all but done Amakuru, so feel free. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, I wasn't even WATCHING THIS PAGE! Who knew. I'm sorry, I'm away with work tomorrow and at Trent Bridge for the clicket (although it's gonna rain) Thursday, BUT I WILL DO MY BEST. Even if it's on the train home from Nottingham.... Apologies for not even noticing your love. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, take your time friend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Snooker
- Nominator(s): User:Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the sport of snooker. After a series of other FAs on snooker tournaments, myself and Rodney have tackled the main game. The article goes into depths about the history, how it has become a worldwide game, the rules, tournaments and the stature of the sport. I hope you enjoy reading, and let me know any issues you might find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image review: File:Joe Davis.jpg and File:Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain.png lack information on the original publication date and/or author. Neither of them is old enough to just assume they are in the public domain. There is also image sandwiching in Important players section. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Rodney has fixed the SANDWICH problem, and I am working on replacing the specific images. There is one from the national gallery that I think is ok. For now, I've commented them out of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- None of the early players (Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, John Spencer, Ray Reardon) have fair-use images on Commons which is a real shame. The images used in their individual wiki articles have only been authorised for use in that one location. Same applies to Neville Chamberlain (although I'm not convinced that his image is legitimately used in his article...) – Is there any way we could approach any of the image originators to request permission to put one of these in the main Snooker article (obo Wiki organisation)? In the meantime, I've added a picture of Steve Davis into Important players section, as it looked a bit odd showing JUST Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm also not keen on seeing History section as just a sea of text with not a single image. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure how much a photograph of a famous player adds to the article. Snooker isn't one of those sports (unlike say marathon running) players' physique or appearance is closely related to their performance. I think it might be better to look for free images of people playing the sport in the past. You could try looking in old snooker publications published before 1926 to find public domain images. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose Bill Werbeniuk would be a good example of why the antithesis of that is true, although generally you do need to be pretty fit to play snooker. We do have some poor quality images, such as one for Joe Davis, as Australian copyright is a bit different, and I'm not sure if something like [7] hits the public domain barrier or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- There's an image of Chamberlain in the Illustrated London News for 4 May 1901 available via the British Newspaper Archive. Would a clipping of that be acceptable? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- It would still have to be licensed for use via Commons. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- There's an image of Chamberlain in the Illustrated London News for 4 May 1901 available via the British Newspaper Archive. Would a clipping of that be acceptable? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose Bill Werbeniuk would be a good example of why the antithesis of that is true, although generally you do need to be pretty fit to play snooker. We do have some poor quality images, such as one for Joe Davis, as Australian copyright is a bit different, and I'm not sure if something like [7] hits the public domain barrier or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure how much a photograph of a famous player adds to the article. Snooker isn't one of those sports (unlike say marathon running) players' physique or appearance is closely related to their performance. I think it might be better to look for free images of people playing the sport in the past. You could try looking in old snooker publications published before 1926 to find public domain images. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- None of the early players (Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, John Spencer, Ray Reardon) have fair-use images on Commons which is a real shame. The images used in their individual wiki articles have only been authorised for use in that one location. Same applies to Neville Chamberlain (although I'm not convinced that his image is legitimately used in his article...) – Is there any way we could approach any of the image originators to request permission to put one of these in the main Snooker article (obo Wiki organisation)? In the meantime, I've added a picture of Steve Davis into Important players section, as it looked a bit odd showing JUST Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm also not keen on seeing History section as just a sea of text with not a single image. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Rodney has fixed the SANDWICH problem, and I am working on replacing the specific images. There is one from the national gallery that I think is ok. For now, I've commented them out of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
History
- "several variations of the game were devised during this time" - is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned?
- I don't think we've commented on snooker at this time, just that there was lots of billiard games that were popular. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- The text is "In the 1870s, billiards was popular among British Army officers stationed in Jubbulpore, India, and several variations of the game were devised during this time. One version, which originated at the Officers' Mess of the 11th Devonshire Regiment in 1875, combined the rules of two pool games: pyramid pool, played with fifteen red-coloured balls positioned in a triangle; and black pool, which involved the potting of designated balls" - with the "One version", doesn't this suggest that it's a variation of billiards? Boru says this, so it's acceptable, but others (e.g. Everton's History, Ch.5) make the link between the pool games and snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps change "billiards" for "billiards and other cue sports"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- The text is "In the 1870s, billiards was popular among British Army officers stationed in Jubbulpore, India, and several variations of the game were devised during this time. One version, which originated at the Officers' Mess of the 11th Devonshire Regiment in 1875, combined the rules of two pool games: pyramid pool, played with fifteen red-coloured balls positioned in a triangle; and black pool, which involved the potting of designated balls" - with the "One version", doesn't this suggest that it's a variation of billiards? Boru says this, so it's acceptable, but others (e.g. Everton's History, Ch.5) make the link between the pool games and snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we've commented on snooker at this time, just that there was lots of billiard games that were popular. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's worth including, but pyramid pool and black pool could have multiple players.
- Feels like a tangent to me. Just need to clarify what bits they take from those games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Probably is tangential for this article, but the more players, the higher the stakes and Everton notes the early version of snooker as a game with "variety (and a variety of monetary forefits)" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's good info, but probably better for History of snooker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Probably is tangential for this article, but the more players, the higher the stakes and Everton notes the early version of snooker as a game with "variety (and a variety of monetary forefits)" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Feels like a tangent to me. Just need to clarify what bits they take from those games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "1882 when its first set of rules was finalised by British Army officer Sir Neville Chamberlain" - isn't there a bit of doubt about this? I'd suggest slightly weakening the statement. (Shamos refers to snooker's origin in India as a "popular legend".)
- My copy of Shamos' book just says that he thinks it's a myth that he came up with the game, not that he published the first set of rules. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that there were originally four pool balls, and other rules changed over time.
- My biggest issue with this, is Shamos' book just says that they used four and then six pool balls, but not whether that was six balls, and also the six colours and white, or if it was just those balls. I'm not sure how you could play the game with four balls, and the item doesn't go into depths on this, but something like The Art Of Practical Billiards: For Amateurs (1889) might do - but I don't have a copy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- So, I found an online copy: [8]. The article mentions 15 red balls, and then six pool balls (not four, like the reference used in Shamos' book). The only difference is that the blue and pink were swapped. For 1889, this is incredibly similar to the rules we currently use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nice find. Interesting that the possibility of a 147 break is mentioned. Everton's History says "it was Chamberlain's inspiration gradually to add other coloured balls so that snooker came to be played with 15 reds, yellow green, pink and black. Blue and brown were added some years later." (p.48) We don't want too much of a diversion into the changes of rules here but I still think it's probably worth noting that the rules developed over time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- So, I found an online copy: [8]. The article mentions 15 red balls, and then six pool balls (not four, like the reference used in Shamos' book). The only difference is that the blue and pink were swapped. For 1889, this is incredibly similar to the rules we currently use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- My biggest issue with this, is Shamos' book just says that they used four and then six pool balls, but not whether that was six balls, and also the six colours and white, or if it was just those balls. I'm not sure how you could play the game with four balls, and the item doesn't go into depths on this, but something like The Art Of Practical Billiards: For Amateurs (1889) might do - but I don't have a copy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The first official snooker tournament was the 1908 American Tournament, held between 1907 and 1908 in London and won by Charles Dawson when the sport was used as an extra feature to billiard matches." - "first", "official"? - what's the basis for this from the source? "won by Charles Dawson" - not verified by source.
- I've gone ahead and removed this. Many sources talk about the first English Amatuer competition being the first official tournament, but this one predates it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's a shame to see it go, but a source is needed. I even checked the 1907/08 copies of The World of Billiards but didn't find any reference to it being the first. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed this. Many sources talk about the first English Amatuer competition being the first official tournament, but this one predates it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Billiards Association and the Billiards Control Board merged" - not verified by source.
- Added source.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Billiards Control Board - wasn’t it the Billiards Control Club?
- It was Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Consider adding the years the two organisations that amalgamated to form the were founded.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- organised by Joe Davis" - worth expanding slightly, I think
- With what? Remember, we are covering an overview of the subject - not every detail will be suitable for the main article. I think the fact he ran the event covers it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look at the sources cited and neither mentions Davis (or any other entity) organising it. I believe it was the BA&CC rather than Davis that organised it, but let's see what sources say. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- With what? Remember, we are covering an overview of the subject - not every detail will be suitable for the main article. I think the fact he ran the event covers it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "moved the game from a recreational pastime to a professional sporting activity" . Not sure about this phrasing. It remained a recreational pastime too. How did he "move the game"?
- Changed the wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- What makes Cues n Views a reliable source?
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Snooker then went into a period of decline through the 1950s and 1960s, with little public interest in the game beyond those who played it" - not verified by Sydney Morning Herald source.
- I have removed it, although this source specifically states this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "this failed to attract attention and was very short-lived" - not verified by sources.
- I have removed both of the above and replaced by a source specifically mentioning that Davis though the sport was in decline. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Snooker quickly became regarded as a mainstream game in the United Kingdom" - I'm not sure this is really verified by the source. What part(s) of the source are you relying on for this?
- Added an additional source stating that it became a mainstream game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "ranking tournaments" - might be worth explaining what these are, or just omitting "ranking"
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "conclusion" seems like an overlink.
- I'm not sure it matters, but I've removed anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Snooker tournaments have been adapted to make them more suitable for television audiences" - not verified by source.
- added a source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "the top players earning several million pounds over the course of their careers" - is there a source that is a bit more specific?
- How much more specific would you like? I think that source covers that there is lots of money in the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- There's no mention of anything outside the men's professional game after 1926. Consider adding something that will at least acknowledge the amateur game here. (It does get coverage later in the article). You could also consider mentioning the Women's Professional Snooker Championship.
- I've added the main world titles for women and amateurs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Gameplay
- The references for the para starting "The cloth on a snooker table.." are both commercial sites, and don't verify all the info there.
- I'll take a look and reword for what better sources say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Some table men" ?
- Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the para beginning "Snooker accessories include chalk for the tip of the cue..." is not supported by the source stated.
- "using the ends of their cue sticks" - yes, but consider omitting.
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The objective of the game is to score more points than one's opponent by potting object balls in the correct order" - Is it? I'm not sure that the rules say this.
- I'm not sure I understand what is the issue with this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The rules don't explicitly state this, no, but it could be argued that no source is necessary, per WP:OBVIOUS. I guess it's more of an interpretation of the rules in general, and based on our own knowledge of the game, so could equally be construed as WP:OR. Would you prefer that we just cut this sentence out altogether? Then the section would begin "At the start of a frame, the object balls are positioned on the table as shown in the illustration opposite." Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- How about, instead, using the rules (3 f,g and h) to explain here who wins a frame/game/match? I do feel feel that "The objective is .." is WP:OR given that the only source cited for this paragraph is the rules. We won't be able to have 100% precision without restating every rule, but I think it is important to have a source if we talk about the objective of the game. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- How is my rewording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Governance and tournaments
- "founded in 1968 as the Professional Billiard Players' Association" - there's a lot of sources with wrong info about this, and I'm aware we're interested in verifiability not "truth" but the PBSA was founded in 1946, not 1968.
- I've removed the date if it's contentious. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "annually since 1927 (except during World War II and between 1958 and 1963)." - not in 1967 either. Twice in 1970, and not in 1971. Maybe slightly tweak the wording rather than list exceptions. I won't suggest that you go into detail about World Professional Match-play Championship v World Championship.
- Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "as of 2019 no such tour has been organised" - source is from late 2018, not 2019.
- Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – source is from 2004….
- Added a source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of WPBSA" – contradicted by source used.
- I've reworded to be less specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Important Players
- "In the professional era of snooker, which began with Joe Davis in the 1930s and continues until the present day, a relatively small number of players have succeeded at the top level." - not verified by sources
- Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "retiring unbeaten" – he retired from the championship, not from all tournaments.
- Specified Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Undefeated in World Championship play, he was only beaten four times in his life, all of these defeats coming after his retirement and inflicted by his own brother Fred Davis. He did lose matches in handicapped tournaments, but on level terms these four defeats were the only losses of his entire career" – can probably be simplified. The "Undefeated in World Championship play" point has been made in the previous sentence.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "the next dominant force was his younger brother Fred Davis" - not supported by source used.
- That senetence isn't required IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "By 1947, Fred Davis was deemed ready by his brother to take over the mantle, but lost the world final to the Scotsman Walter Donaldson" – not supported by source. Is “Scotsman” required?
- Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Could mention that Pulman won in 1957.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "John Pulman was the most successful player of the 1960s, winning seven consecutive world titles between April 1964 and March 1968 when the World Championship was contested on a challenge basis" – not supported by source used.
- Changed soruce 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar. Ronnie O'Sullivan has come the closest to dominance since 2000" – source is basically a list of winners. IMO it does not support this content.
- Added a ref Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Journal of Complex Networks source is very interesting. The cition needs some tidying. I haven't digested it yet, so have a couple of questions. It says that "John Higgins is the highest performing Snooker player of all time", and, looking at table three in the article, wouldn't it be fairer to say in the following sentence in Wikipedia's article that Higgins (2nd 2000–2009; 5th 2010–2019) has been more dominant that O'Sullivan (1st 2000–2009; but 8th 2010–2019)?
- I'm not sure we can make that argument. I've simply changed that he's won the world crown the most times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, what part of the Journal of Complex Networks source are you relying on to support "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar."?
- The Journal of Complex Networks source is very interesting. The cition needs some tidying. I haven't digested it yet, so have a couple of questions. It says that "John Higgins is the highest performing Snooker player of all time", and, looking at table three in the article, wouldn't it be fairer to say in the following sentence in Wikipedia's article that Higgins (2nd 2000–2009; 5th 2010–2019) has been more dominant that O'Sullivan (1st 2000–2009; but 8th 2010–2019)?
- Added a ref Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "After Joe Davis created the World Snooker Championship" - not verified by source cited.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- "but lost the world final to Walter Donaldson." - not verified by source cited.
- Changed ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Notes
- f and h don't have supporting references.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
External links
- Consider removing the EBSA link, or adding other continental associations.
- I agree. Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
- Equipment - billiard table, not snooker table.
- Lee's changed this back to snooker table, so I guess you need to discuss which one is correct!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the Shamos reference is to his entry on snooker, it says "played with 22 balls on an English billiards table." I wouldn't mind "snooker table" if there's a decent source for it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'd argue this is a WP:BLUE thing. Of course snooker is played on a snooker table. People have played snooker on pool tables, on the grass (see Lawn Billiards, and on circular tables. We go into detail as to what the tables look like, and they aren't the same as English Billiards tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wikilink or gloss equipment terms.
- Consider adding scoreboard to equipment list.
- Venue - needs citing, or perhaps better to omit. (There was of course the outdoor Snooker at the 1960 Summer Paralympics.)
- Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
General
- There are a few duplicate links.
- Please can you be more specific so we can remedy. Do you mean MOS:DUPLINK in body? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've fixed these ones, Rodney. Only thing I'm struggling for is book ref pages. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Book refs 117, 118, 120 are missing page numbers.
- I have removed/added book page numbers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Newspaper refs 16, 119 are missing page numbers.
- Added page nos for newspapers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
TRM
Lead/infobox
- Why only one element of the infobox cited? Looks odd, can that not be cited in the main body?
- was already cited, removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not overly struck by the infobox photo, but it's not a dealbreaker, wouldn't it be better to have an image of a competitive match?
- I don't disagree exactly, but I do think it is a decent image to show how the game is played. There aren't many CC-BY-SA images that are clear and show the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "cloth (or "baize")" why not "cloth called "baize""?
- Sure Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "players[a] take turns" that footnote would be better placed in the main body too, you could say "individual players or sides" or similar in the lead if you felt it was important to keep that information in there.
- Moved and changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "An individual frame of ... end of the frame" repetitive.
- Sure. Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "snooker match ends ... winning the match" similar.
- Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "a professional sport" link?
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "snooker is now governed" the amateur game doesn't appear to be governed by WPBSA per infobox?
- Indeed, it says "as a professional sport,..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "has taken place since 1927. " annually.
- Ah, but it's not been annually - see comments by Benny above - per the Challenge events, time out for the wars, and the 1970 event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the women's competitions should be mentioned before non-prof/disabled tournaments.
- Moved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
History
- "in Jubbulpore, India" this was "Jabalpur" in the lead, be consistent with these names.
- Changed in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "pyramid pool, played ... black pool" why in italics? They weren't formatted that way in the lead.
- Itals removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "billiards table" it may not be clear that a billiards table is synonymous with snooker table here, although of course some billiards tables had no pockets, so not always the case.
- Hmm, not sure what you want me to change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well why would a non-expert reader know that a billiards table is a snooker table? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure what you want me to change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "championship until 1946, when he retired from taking part in the championships" repetitive.
- Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "new colour service" you've already mentioned colour television so the link should go there.
- Moved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "second-most popular show" do we have any data on that, viewership etc? And behind what show?
- Behind Morecambe and Wise. It was a different era. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- You noted that the WC was discontinued in 1957 but didn't pick up on when it re-started (or why).
- "to just fifteen" remove "just".
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "dedicated 400 hours to snooker coverage, compared to just 14 minutes 40 years" is this per annum?
- The source isn't specific about it, that's why I wasn't so specific. I'd assume this is just for the main event, but could potentially be per annum. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "interest in World Snooker Ltd. and " this the first mention of this, it needs introduction (and no full stop after Ltd).
- I've removed the mention of this, I feel it's a bit too in depth for an article on the sport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "over a shortened length" reads odd, do you mean shortened duration?
- I do, although strictly speaking, playing less frames doesn't neccesarily mean less time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "sport continues to grow" how is that substantiated? Do you have figures for increase in participation over the years?
- This specifically says "prize money". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The winner of the 2021 World Snooker..." You could name him.
- I have now, but I'm not sure I prefer it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Gameplay
- ’ of the cushions is " you should explain what cushions are when you describe the difference in the size of the table and the size of the playing area.
- Added a small explaination Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "smaller tables using fewer red balls" at this point we don’t even know what a "red ball" is and why fewer of them is even an option.
- Good catch, I've removed the balls piece, as from experience smaller tables simply have smaller balls. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The nap affects the speed and trajectory of the cue ball," won’t it affect all balls?
- Changed to "balls", although there's an argument that it effects the cue ball to a higher degree. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "which is shared between the players" seems odd to say that, all the balls are strictly shared between the players. If you mean "which the players take turns to use" or something that would make more sense to me.
- I don't think we need that bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "include chalk for the tip of the cue" explain why.
- Added, and changed into a list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "playing shots that are difficult to play by hand" you name examples, e.g. swan, spider etc.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "potting object balls in the" you should introduce this term earlier.
- I'm not sure it's suitable. Until the "Objective" section, we aren't talking about playing, just what the various things are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "table as shown in the illustration opposite." Not opposite in my screen, half a screen’s scrolling down…
- Changed the wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "unless it has entered a pocket"… in which case?
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The process of potting reds and colours alternately continues" or until all reds have been potted…
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "the objective is to first pot a red ball; this is always the case" unless the player nominates a colour as a red following a foul…?
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "only the six colour balls are left on the table" and the cue ball strictly.
- Of course. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "hoping to force their opponent into playing foul shots" how?
- Added a bit on snookers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "decides who goes first" -> "who takes the first strike"?
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "play again from where the balls have come to rest" or restoring the table to its previous setup and replaying the shot again?
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "such as the World Championship uses" I definitely think this is an apt time to talk about the earlier WC’s where MASSIVE scorelines were commonplace, best-of-35-frame matches are relatively modern…
- Added a piece about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Isn’t there a link for "session"?
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Governance and tournaments
- Link "ranking".
- Moved from below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "World Snooker limited responsible for" again, odd use of italics and this sentence isn’t grammatically correct.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Colour ball points table needs a caption as it sits (on my screen) next to the "World ranking" section so to non-experts it may need explanation.
- Happy too, but not entirely sure how I do that for a wikitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a link for "seeding"?
- There is - added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The current world rankings are" ranking is used three times in this one sentence…
- Removed two. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "sponsored by Embassy from" tobacco company.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- " is a difficult challenge that " get rid of that.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Triple Crown fact is "as of 2019".
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "the Champion of Champions was established.[95] The Champion of Champions" repetitive.
- Changed to event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "the majority of tournaments on the professional circuit require players to wear waistcoats and bow ties" out of interest to me, which ones don’t?
- The Snooker Shoot Out doesn't, and things like the World Cup have flirted with it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association submitted" the WPBSA submitted…
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "the World Snooker Federation, founded" what do this lot do that isn’t done by WPBSA? Are they in competition with one another?
- WSF look after the amateur game under the umbrella of the WPBSA, it's quite confusing actually. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "this is the oldest snooker competition still being played." In England or the world?
- In the world. There are texts saying it was the first tournament ever played, but that has been disproven Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "but as of 2018 no such tour has been organised" well that’s true as of 2021, right?
- I don't have a source for 2021 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The All-Party Parliamentary Group said" this links to a generic article, which APPG are you talking about here?
- I'm not sure. This is the source, which names a chairman and an MP, but I really don't understand politics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Snooker (as the source says).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. This is the source, which names a chairman and an MP, but I really don't understand politics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Important players
- "Davis was … Joe was…" be consistent (I know you’re trying to avoid the Steve/Fred/Joe clash).
- Indeed, (and I suppose Mark Davis, while we are at it.) I've changed to full names for all in this section, as the MOS has always been a bit confusing to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "take over the mantle" a little whimsical.
- Agred Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "1952 event boycotted by British professionals" why? This should be in the history section…
- Added to the section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "1957 event.[123] John Pulman won the 1957 event and" link the 1957 event first time.
- Sure Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "winning streak" link.
- linked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- You could link each of those world championships (e.g. in the "(2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2020)" phrases.
- These are now linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "career centuries, and " centuries probably ought to be introduced in the Scoring section as it’s considered notable and people have lists of them etc. Along with 50s…
- I have added a piece in the scoring. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Variants
- "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment. Variants of snooker are cue games that are based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin." Merge, so something like "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment but based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin."
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Created by Joe Davis, and introduced at…." This was mildly covered in the history section, probably need to be careful not to be too repetitive.
- I don't disagree, and I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Just references to review on this first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- Our own article has BBC Sport not italicised.
- They are currently listed as work params, should this be something else? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Publisher works fine for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- They are currently listed as work params, should this be something else? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- What’s the strategy on linking publishers/websites etc in the refs? It’s not clear.
- I have removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 4 vs Ref 8, both WPBSA refs both formatted differently.
- I have been through and made these consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 15 is entitled Encyclopaedia Britannica but what’s actually being used??
- I'm not sure I understand. We have left a ISBN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- But the title is normally the article within the encyclopedia being used, along with page number/range. The title is not Encyclopedia Britannica, that's the work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. In that case, the Gatsby article should be plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- But the title is normally the article within the encyclopedia being used, along with page number/range. The title is not Encyclopedia Britannica, that's the work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. We have left a ISBN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 17: pp. 228-229. Should be en-dash.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 21 appears to have WWS and Women’s Snooker in the title, not necessary.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 24, TIME -> Time
- Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 25, what makes FCSnooker.co.uk a high-quality RS?
- replaced by this lovely source by the Times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 27, avoid CAPITALISATION.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 28: The Guardian, not the Guardian.
- Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why does ref 29 have a silver icon and not ref 28, both The Guardian?
- I've gone through and added that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 38: I need a paid subscription to access that.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 42: get rid of website from ref title.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 46: Another different WPBSA format.
- fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 47: 227-228 needs en-dash.
- fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 48: What makes ActiveSG a high quality RS?
- Replaced by Shamos. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 49: where is the author name mentioned in the source?
- Unsure, removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- General: what makes these various seemingly minor equipment manufacturers’ self-published websites RS?
- I'm working my way through removing them. Feel free to let me know of any I missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 72: last time you used wst.tv you added WPBSA as a published. Check the others, e.g. ref 89, for consistency.
- Fixed per consensus Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 75: isn’t that just Coral the bookmakers rather than something called "Coral News"?
- Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 82: what makes The UK Sponsorship Database a high-quality RS?
- Removed. Info was well cited anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 99: our article on Reuters does not italicise it.
- Same as BBC above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 106, 107: These are BNA but not linked and noted as subscription only while ref 16 has an online link and denotes subs only.
- I've added urls for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Refs 114, 115: BBC News is not italicised per our article.
- Will await your info. Do you just wany these made into publishers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 117: is that really the History Channel?
- The about us page suggests it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Refs 119, 120, 122: page numbers/ranges.
- Refs 123 and 124 look the same to me.
- Merged Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Refs 138 to 140, abuse of "first/last" by the looks of it and a spaced hyphen in the title, should be en-dash.
- Whoops. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 144: Eurosport is not italicised.
- Same as others. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 147: what makes snookergames.co.uk a high quality reliable source?
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 150 has the website in the title, not needed.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ref 151: what makes euronet.nl a high quality reliable source? And if it stays, fix the spaced hyphen.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've covered all of the referencing issues, aside from the italics info mentioned. Happy to fix up with your suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I've changed the refences to be publishers not work. Just the book page numbers are required, which I'm working on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've covered all of the referencing issues, aside from the italics info mentioned. Happy to fix up with your suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man: Has this one stalled? TRM, is the ball in your court? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Not stalled as far as I'm concerned. Just need to go through the responses. Was there a deadline? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, but if I see an open review with no comments after a week or so I give a nudge, just in case it has slipped either the nominator's or reviewer's mind. In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Aza24
In general, I'm leaning towards support, mainly per my read through and comments at PR. However, I'm a bit concerned that some of the (seemingly high-quality) book sources are under used (this is a point I brought up at PR as well). This of course brings up the issue of having a thorough survey or relevant literature for the sake of doing so, vs sourcing what information is needed from where its available. Some specific comments:
- Neither of the Everton books appear to be cited in the article
- (Minor point) Refs 62 and 123 and should presumably be sfn like the others
- Hayes is not used anywhere either
I do wonder if sources like Maume, Clare and Nunns are really preferable over some of these, especially when the Evertons are completely unused. Interested to hear what the nominators think of these comments and sorry if I'm being a nuisance... Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Cyclone Berguitta
This tropical cyclone went mostly under the radar when it existed in January 2018, but it caused significant impacts in Mauritius and Réunion. It was part of an exhausting cyclone season for Réunion, where they were hit by five cyclones (Ava, Berguitta, Dumazile, Eliakim, and Fakir) in four months. This article relies quite a lot on local media (mostly in French) as many English news outlets failed to pick up on this system. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Horsesizedduck
The lead is quite large, wouldn't you say? I will see about improving it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
For a more complete impression, the article actually appears stunning. No doubt there's FA in here. There may just be some copyedit work to be done. Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Images are freely licensed. Vaticidalprophet 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Hurricane Noah
The third tropical system and first Intense Tropical Cyclone
ITC shouldnt be capitalized.west-southwest on 16 January
--> west-southwestwardthree-quarters
non-breaking space needed- @Hurricane Noah: I assume you meant a non-breaking hyphen? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
the surrounding environment became generally conducive to strengthening.
How so?957 tonnes
convert to short tons
Support from Hurricanehink
Support. Third comment in a row from a H user name!
- "A quarter of the island's average annual rainfall fell during those three days" - can you avoid the "rainfall fell" construction?
- "In the aftermath of the storm, the government gave payouts to around 13,000 residents affected by the storm, but delays in the payments and public sentiment that deemed payments insufficient resulted in protests. The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables. The Prime Minister's Office resorted to calling on the public and private sectors to contribute to the Prime Minister's Cyclone Relief Fund to fund the costs of reconstruction. More protests ensued several months later when families were evicted from evacuation centres before receiving houses that the government had promised them." - can this be summarized a bit? I agree with the above that the lead is fairly long.
- I suggest adding the peak rainfall to the lead, that's important.
- "Flooding occurred in many parts of the island, helped by a high water table after rains from Cyclone Ava earlier in the month. " - not sure "helped" is the right word here
- "However, this too was seen as grossly insufficient" - "grossly" seems a bit biased and unnecessary.
- "about 90 km (56 mi) " - if the first unit is rounded, the second should be as well
This is a very good article, and I would be happy to support its candidacy with some minor tweaks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: should be done. Let me know if you have more feedback (on the lead, or otherwise). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to support, great work on this! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Z1720
Non-expert review.
- I agree with Horsesizedduck that the lede is quite long. I would suggest trimming this a little bit. However, two cyclone experts with lots of FA experience support this article already, so I won't factor this into my assessment. However, I can offer some suggestions of trimming if you want.
- "However, decreasing oceanic heat content as Berguitta tracked further south caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation." awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "As Berguitta tracked further south, decreasing oceanic heat content caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation."
- "A 108 km/h (67 mph) wind gust was recorded in Patate-Théophile, and a gust to 102 km/h (63 mph) was observed in Pointe-Canon." Where are these places relative to the Rodrigues island?
- The "Mauritius Island" and "Effects in Réunion" sections are quite large. Is there a way to split these sections using more level 3 headings? Perhaps adding a "Aftermath" section to Mauritius and including "Effects" and "Aftermath" headings in Reunion?
Those are my thoughts. I did not notice issues upon a glance at the references. Please ping when you respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: your suggestions for cutting down the lead would be greatly appreciated, I've hit some sort of roadblock in deciding what info is necessary for the lead and what isn't. I believe I've addressed the rest of your pointers. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions on where to cut in the lede:
- "Intense Tropical Cyclone Berguitta was a strong tropical cyclone that caused catastrophic flooding in Mauritius and Réunion in January 2018." Delete strong, delete catastrophic. Its destruction is going to be outlined later in the lede.
- "The remnants of Berguitta later transitioned " Delete later
- "In Mauritius, Berguitta first brought heavy rains and gusty winds to Rodrigues from 13 to 15 January." Delete first
- The second and third paragraphs need a major trim. These should highlight the most notable damage on the islands, the cleanup effort, and the aftermath, all in about 4-6 sentences. I'll give some examples of sentences that I think can be deleted below, and why
- "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." This feels pretty common in major weather events, so I don't think is needed here.
- "After affecting Rodrigues," Delete, redundant.
- "Cyclone warnings were issued and evacuation centres opened before Berguitta hit, while public amenities, schools, and workplaces were closed." This feels common for major weather events like cyclones, so I think it can be deleted.
- "Numerous rescues were carried out as people attempted to escape rising floodwaters." I think this common in this situation, so can be deleted.
- "The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables." I think this is self-evident, considering that you already mentioned that 3/4 of the island's crops were destroyed earlier in the paragraph.
- "The Prime Minister's Office had to call on the public and private sectors to help fund the costs of reconstruction." This requires further detail to explain why this is notable, so I think it can be deleted.
- "Initial cyclone warnings were issued on 15 January and escalated in severity on 17 January, after which evacuation centres were opened. The island's main airport was closed for a day and several airlines altered their flight schedules. Other public facilities were closed as early as 16 January." I think this is all common for a cyclone and not important for the lede, so it can be deleted.
After the above are addressed, I will take a look at the edited lede and see if anything else can be eliminated. Feel free to disagree or modify my suggestions in the prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I've implemented the recommended amendments as they all make sense. I've trimmed some other excessive wording here and there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Some more places to trim:
- "It slowly organised amid a favourable environment as it moved southwards," Either describe what made the environment favourable, or delete.
- "A weakening trend commenced as Berguitta began crawling west-southwestwards on 16 January" -> "Berguitta weakened as it crawled west-southwest on 16 January"?
- "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." I think this can be deleted, as this is expected in a cyclone so not as notable to mention here.
- " It maintained its intensity as it accelerated southwestwards" -> "It continued" I don't think we need to say that it maintained its intensity, as we just said it became a tropical storm, so I think the reader will assume that it remaining a tropical storm during this time.
- "19 January as environmental conditions became more hostile." -> Became more hostile to the storm?
- "dissipated over the open Indian Ocean" Delete open.
I think the lede is almost ready. Z1720 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The lede looks a lot better. I think you can consider removing the sentence from the second paragraph about the two deaths, and the one in the third about the lost person, but this will not prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- I'm noticing discrepancies in how "certain" numbers are. For example, in the lead we see "around" 6,800 households without power in Mauritius and 100,000 customers in Réunion; in the text though the former number is exact but the latter is "up to". Are these numbers reported with certainty in the sources, or are they not?
- For the former, the source states (roughly) "6,800 were without power yesterday morning". It looks rounded to me, but to avoid ambiguity I'll change the lead to "A total of 6,800 households" instead. For the latter, the source has "almost 100,000 were affected by power outages", so the part in the body is correct and I've put "nearly" in the lead. I fixed another instance of this regarding the number of people registering for payouts from the Mauritian government. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- What makes exchangerates.org.uk a high-quality reliable source? Zinfos?
- Zinfos lists their journalists here. They seem decently well-established and (if they are to be believed) they're the most-viewed news site in Réunion. For the one article of theirs I'm citing, they republish the government document they base their claims off. There is some political commentary in that article but it's not relevant to the content I'm using it to support, which is just the existence of the project to bridge the river. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- For exchangerates.org.uk, they say that they've been around since 2005 and are one of the UK's most-used sites to view exchange rates, but I haven't really found anything to back that up. I'm considering switching to something like XE, which is ranked more favorably and much more popular. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- FN51: author name is misspelled
- Imaz Press Réunion links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Cimoliopterus
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC); JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a pterosaur only definitely known from jaw fragments, but which has been historically important for the understanding of the group. It was one of the largest pterosaurs known when it was named in 1851, and one of the first members of the group to be depicted in sculpture, but its appearance was unclear until more complete relatives were discovered in the 1980s. We have summarised the historical literature about the animal here, which also means the article gets into some complicated, 19th century taxonomy, so parts of it may be difficult to understand, so we are open for any suggestions that would make it more approachable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image review: licensing looks OK, but many of the images are too small to see easily. For example, "Holotype snout tips of P. fittoni, O. brachyrhinus, and O. enchorhynchus" should be scaled up so it is more accessible. You might consider cropping the right half (diagram part) of the images so that the fossil image can be displayed larger. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
Very comprehensive, some nitpicks though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your geographical unit for the European finds seems to be England, whereas two London-born people are referred to as British, rather than English. Is this consistent?
Not sure I’d bother with the country in Kent, England or Texas, US.
- All the sources make a point out of this, so I think it's important to include, also because the same formations can stretch across state boundaries, counties, etc (which was also demonstrated with the map-issue below). Or do you mean only in the intro specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
’’premaxillary ‘’— link in lead
- Linked to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. ‘’ —the multiple “withs” make this harder to follow
- I think this has already been fixed? It's currently like this if I'm not wrong: "with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws." JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- The teeth at the front ... . Their necks ‘’ —subject of “their “seems to have been lost
- ’’made of dark stone ‘’ —namely?
- ’’wastebin ‘’ bit of an easter egg, write in full I think
- Well, the problem is the source only says "wastebin", which the familiar reader would know is equivalent to the linked term wastebasket taxon. I'm not sure how free I am to change the terminology of the source here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- What is your criterion for red-linking names?
Kimolia (Κιμωλία), which means "chalk", and pteron (πτερόν) which means "wing". —Second “which means” seems redundant
- Changed the second one to "meaning" so it varies a bit. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
’’the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri ‘’— Italics needed
- Italicized. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- ‘’and less than 180°)’’ —is this needed?
- In Palaeoenvironment, you say ‘’The holotype of C. cuvieri was found in Kent, England ‘’, but the stratigraphic map says it was found in the area depicted, which is Cambridgeshire, nowhere near Kent. Am I missing something?
- All looks good, I'm happy to leave the wastebin, see if anyone else picks it up. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Support Dunkleosteus77
- Par 2 sent 1 in the lead, just for brevity you should just say "Cimoliopterus is estimated to have had..." if both species are estimated to have had about the same wingspan User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit more complicated than that, which is why the wording is somewhat convoluted. It is elaborated on under description. The problem is that one writer stated they were similar in size, but then proceeded to give a smaller estimate for C. dunni than had been given for C. cuvieri before... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Cimoliopterus is distinct from related pterosaurs in features..." this sounds weird because it's a pretty obvious statement. Maybe something like "Cimoliopterus is most notably distinguished by..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Others can weigh in, but I feel like the 2nd par is too descriptive and technical for the lead, and the lead is overall pretty big for an article this size. I feel like we can just leave it at a long, crested beak (bill? snout? whatever) with recurved and protrusive teeth, size, wingspan, and hair and membrane. Palatal ridges, tooth sockets, and comparisons with other taxa seem too much User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, we need to know what distinguishes it from similar pterosaurs, and what distinguishes the two species from each other. Otherwise every intro description about most pterosaurs could just be the same, which is pointless. As for length, there are MOS guides for that at WP:lead length. But I have removed the following text, which was probably too general for the intro: "The necks were proportionally long, the torsos relatively small, and the forelimbs were proportionally enormous compared to the legs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Par 3 sent 1 and 2 really belong in Par 1 with the rest of the taxonomy discussion. Also, you say it was classified into Ornithocheirus twice User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is higher level taxonomy, which is covered in the classification section, so the intro follows the order of the article itself in this regard. I don't see where it says it was classified as Ornithocheirus twice, it says ornithocheiran the second time around, which is a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- It was only classified as an ornithocherian when it was placed in Anhanguera and Ornithocheirus. Therefore, mentioning ornithocheiran is redundant User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- It is still considered an ornithocheiran. You may be confusing it with ornithocheirid, which is a narrower group which it is not considered part of today (by Brazilian researchers at least, British researchers still largely follow the ornithocheirid scheme, but see also the cladogram based on Jacobs 2019). There is generally still a deep division between the pterosaur classification schemes used by Brazilian versus British palaeontologists, and it will probably not be resolved any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- It was only classified as an ornithocherian when it was placed in Anhanguera and Ornithocheirus. Therefore, mentioning ornithocheiran is redundant User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is higher level taxonomy, which is covered in the classification section, so the intro follows the order of the article itself in this regard. I don't see where it says it was classified as Ornithocheirus twice, it says ornithocheiran the second time around, which is a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Par 3 sent 3 and 4 are the longest-winded way of saying they were adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Shortened to "This kind of pterosaur was probably adapted for long-distance oceanic soaring". But that these two species evolved in this particular way needs to be spelled out, I think. "Adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic" probably isn't understandable to most readers, though it works well as condensed for more familiar readers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- "While some have suggested the premaxillary crests were used to stabilise the jaws while submerged in water during feeding, they may have been used as display structures instead" the way this is worded, it implies the former were probably wrong User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- "is considered confusing" this is like when journalists have to write "allegedly" in the titles to avoid lawsuits User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- "and with the full length of the foot on the ground" you could also just say "feet flat on the ground" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- "which was prepared away" I don't think you can use prepare like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Preparation in palaeontology is used this way. See for example these Google Scholar results:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Dunkleosteus77, do you have any further comments on FunkMonk's responses, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Preparation in palaeontology is used this way. See for example these Google Scholar results:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- "and such fish may also have altered their flight capability, as is the case for bats" this implies you're talking about bats eating fish, when the source seems to only be talking about bats eating mosquitos User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't imply what the bats in this context have been eating, all it says is "Furthermore, possibly their stomachs might not have been able to contain a large fish without substantially altering flight capabilities, as in modern bats (Altringham 1996)". So we can't be more specific than the source, but note that some bats do eat fish[10], so we can't rule out that's what the source refers to either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "were probably for minimising water attrition" I assume you didn't understand the physics and just read the caption. Basically it's saying Coloborhynchus approached the water with its head parallel to the surface, then sunk its lower jaw into the water, and then turned its entire head down towards the fish (perpendicular to the surface). It also had to extend its neck forward as it flew in order to have enough to time grasp the fish because the fish would be swimming at a slower speed than the pterosaur. The crest acted like a rudder to keep the head stationary, counteracting the force of the surface ocean current moving perpendicular to the direction of the pterosaur up to 5 m/s, aided by the rigidity of the neck in lateral directions. Beyond that speed, the pterosaur would only be able to maintain stability in the water if it's moving in the same direction as the current. Birds are small enough to use their wings to exert a balancing force, but the larger pterosaurs' wings would plunge into the water if it attempted that strategy. You don't have to include all of this, but certainly "water attrition" with no context is unintelligible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I simply didn't think the theoretical details were important or interesting enough for the reader to explain in depth, as it wasn't this genus that was used for the experiment anyway, but a relative, so the current wording seemed sufficient. But I'm not against adding more detail, it just needs to be concise enough. I have paraphrased some of what you wrote above, but any further suggestions are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "high-modulus material" specify elastic or Young's modulus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added "(Young’s modulus, tensile elasticity)" after the mention. Not sure how else to do this concisely without the sentence becoming unwieldy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- gloss wing spar (like "main structural element/support" or something) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane, the tensions needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter, and minimising ballooning of the membrane under flight loads" I don't believe most people would understand this level of fluid mechanics. You can just say something like "to infer the minimum surface tension necessary to withstand drag/air resistance/the wind/etc. at high flight speeds, thus preventing structural failure. This can be counteracted by thickening the wing membrane, but this would cumbersomely increase its weight. So, the required tension is only feasibly minimized if the material of the wing par has a high elastic modulus (a measure of a material's resistance to temporary deformation), such as keratin." You can also include their estimated Young's modulus value of 1–2 GPa assuming the keratin (5 GPa) makes up 20–40% of the wing membrane. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Likewise, I'm not sure that ths level of methodological details of an experimental paper would be particularly interesting in an article about an animal genus, it is mainly the conclusions that concern us. I think most of what you wrote there would actually be less understandable to the reader than the current wording, but I think the first part was concise enough, so I've added the folliwing hybrid "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter (instability caused by air resistance) at high flight speeds, and minimising ballooning, thus preventing structural failure of the membrane under flight loads". FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will review over this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't stay up late on a work night, but I drank three glasses of sweet tea earlier, so here I am still awake.
- "The species was since assigned to various other genera, including Ornithocheirus and Anhanguera." - maybe it's just me, but "was since" doesn't seem well for some reason
- "has been described as confusing" - by whom?
- "C. cuvieri has a low snout compared to Ornithocheirus and also possesses a forward-facing first pair of tooth sockets, unlike that genus." - maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but since Ornithocheirus is a wastebasket taxon, can you really compare it to that?
- Good point, it refers to the type species of Ornithocheirus, which is the only definite member of the genus. I've now stated in the history section that the genus is now restricted to that species, should make it clearer what is referred to in later mentions. Added "which they restricted to its type species, O. simus". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does it add anything to the article to have two very similar depictions of the holotype when it still had teeth?
- The first one is interesting because it was the first published depiction, and the second is unique in showing further views (back, front), and close ups of the teeth. They're also very far from each other, so are used to illustrate different aspects (history for the first one, anatomy for the other). FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "At less than 1 millimetre (0.039 in) " - this feels like false precision on the inches conversion to me, since inches are generally only rarely measured down to the .001 precision, and it's not an exact number anyway
Ready for the Classification section. Will try to finish this off tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "in addition to the species O. sedgwicki (now considered the type species of Aerodraco or alternatively a species of Camposipterus" - Aerodraco sedgwicki is mentioned later but spelled sedgwickii, is the single-i spelling a typo or how it was originally spelled? It's also spelled sedgwickii later when referring to C. sedgwickii, so that same query applies there
- It depends on the sources, but originally and today, it was sedgwickii. I think the problem is because 19th century writers like Owen thought they could simply "correct" names they thought were wrong, which is not accepted today. Hence it was referred to as O. sedgwicki during its time under Ornithocheirus... FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is there nothing to say about classification between Hooley 1914 and Unwin 2001?
- Not really for higher level classification, hence the sentence "O. cuvieri and many other English pterosaurs were kept in the genus Ornithocheirus for most of the 20th century" under history. What else happened in between with the various species is covered under history, but it was mainly changes of names. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Cimoliopterus is unlikely to be paraphyletic (an unnatural group)" - is this consensus? Or does it need attribution, as it looks like almost everything for classification about this genus is open to discussion
- When you cite Witton's blog, recommend author-linking Mark P. Witton to make it clear that he qualifies as a subject-matter expert.
- "Aussiedraco (of Albian age) " - link Albian
- It's in a category about Albian age life, but the only mentions of the Albian period is to compare it to some life that happened to be in the Albian (along with a varmint from a different period)
- "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013). "Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England"." - citing a range of over 100 pages is pretty long. This may need specific page number citations
- Friedman 2004 is a master's thesis, does it meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- " Csiki-Sava, Z.; Buffetaut, E.; Ősi, A.; Pereda-Suberbiola, X.; Brusatte, S. L. (2015). "Island life in the Cretaceous - faunal composition, biogeography, evolution, and extinction of land-living vertebrates on the Late Cretaceous European archipelago"" - page range of over 150 pages; probably needs specific page numbers
I think that's it from me. While I looked at the sources some, this is not a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- There should be answers to everything now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Z1720
Non-expert prose review. I made some edits to the article to put references in numerical order. Please review and revert if I messed something up.
- Regarding the images with this caption, "Two sculptures from the 1850s in Crystal Palace Park based on C. cuvieri...": The front-facing image is difficult to see because there are obstructions in the image and the resolution is too small. I recommend removing it and just showing the side image at a larger resolution.
- "They were depicted with scales, though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering (a feature already realised by some scientists at the time)," I would put "though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering" inside the brackets as it is different from the description of the statue's depiction, and it makes it more clear that the bird-like proportions are describing the statues, not what scientists now know about the species. I also suggest some phrasing changes, outlined in this rewording: "They were depicted with scales (though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering a feature already realised by some scientists at the time) and bird-like proportions such as small heads and large torsos, as was customary at the time."
- "the foot flat on the ground" -> "one foot flat on the ground".
- "showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised." I think "though this had not been previously recognised" can be removed as the preceding sentences are describing how the Brazillian specimens brought new information about the English specimens, so it's assumed that this information was not recognised before this period.
- "and cited him for the name, without further explanation." Remove comma?
- Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- "placed hindward on the snout, by the seventh socket pair," Remove comma?
- Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Bowerbank and Owen described and figured the now lost teeth found with the C. cuvieri holotype in 1851." Is figured the right word to use there, or is there a word missing? Not sure what this phrasing is trying to say.
- "which protruded about one-third of an inch, downwards and forwards at an oblique angle." Remove comma
- Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "But it still remained a mystery why no close" Delete But?
- Changed "but" to "however". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "They concluded the recognition of the clade Targaryendraconia" -> "They concluded that the recognition"
- Changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- "(96–90 million years ago)." It's unusual for me that the date furthest away is placed first. Should the two numbers be flipped?
- It's usually like that with paleontological articles, from older to younger. I'm not really sure why this is, perhaps since it's million years BC, but I'm not completely sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- By analogy, I think, nobody will say World War II (1945-1939). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's usually like that with paleontological articles, from older to younger. I'm not really sure why this is, perhaps since it's million years BC, but I'm not completely sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Currently, the references are not consistent with books; sometimes they are given an sfn template and placed in Works Cited, othertimes they are given ref tags. This should be consistent.
- ISBNs for books should be consistent with which version is used (10-digit or 12-digit) and the use of dashes.
- "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)." is the only journal source placed in Works Cited. Why is that? As with the books, journal citations should be consistent on if they are using sfn templates or ref tags.
- It's because it's the only journal source long enough to have to be broken up into multiple page ranges. Any suggestions for alternatives? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- My preference is to put all journal entries in sfn templates citing the specific page numbers, then have the journal listed in Works Cited and include the page numbers of the total article. Since this is a lot of extra work and probably not preferable, I won't let this affect a future support for me. However, page numbers for "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)" should be included in the Works Cited. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's because it's the only journal source long enough to have to be broken up into multiple page ranges. Any suggestions for alternatives? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are there page numbers for "Myers, T. S. (2015)", "Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018)" and "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V.; Canudo, J. I.; Fortuny, J.; Rodrigues, T.; Company, J.; Kellner, A. W. A. (2019)"?
Those are my thoughts. Please ping when these are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, and for the citation edits too, I'll have a look at these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Seeing as this needs one yet, I'll put this on my to-do list. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- the page range for the article "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V. (2020). "A taxonomic and phylogenetic review of the anhanguerid pterosaur group Coloborhynchinae and the new clade Tropeognathinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 65. doi:10.4202/app.00751.2020" would be nice
- Oh yeah, we've apparently missed that one somehow. Added. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- ditto with " Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018). "Late Maastrichtian pterosaurs from North Africa and mass extinction of Pterosauria at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". PLOS Biology. 16 (3): e2001663. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001663. PMC 5849296. PMID 29534059.", if possible, unless the e2001663 is already a way of indicating location within the publication
- and " Myers, T. S. (2015). "First North American occurrence of the toothed pteranodontoid pterosaur Cimoliopterus". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (6): e1014904. doi:10.1080/02724634.2015.1014904. S2CID 86099117."
The three above are really just to indicate the location within the publication. If it's not possible to get page numbers, I don't think that's a big deal.
- A problem with some of these (such as Plos 1) is that they're online publications not divided into pages, you just scroll down and down on the article's page. But one way to get around it would be to download the pdf version and give the page ranges from there, if that sounds good, but we most likely didn't ever look at the pdfs while writing the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- A blog is cited (Witton), but the author meets WP:SPS
- page ranges/numbers provided for the book/article length sources are satisfactory, IMO.
- Sources are all reliable
- Spot checks I did turned up no issues with source-text integrity or close paraphrasing
- source formatting is okay in all points that seem to be major
The sole comments are things that fall into the "nice, but don't seem to be strictly necessary" range in my opinion, so this can be considered a pass on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - This source review passes. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Robert Kaske
- Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
On a bomb-shattered Pacific island in the waning days of World War II, Robert Kaske read a story about two professors so engrossed in their conversation that by the time dusk turned to dawn, they had forgotten where they were. The story led Kaske to abandon his intentions of a business career; he instead made his way to Cornell and founded one of the preeminent medieval studies graduate programs in North America, credited with producing the backbone of the discipline's next scholastic generation.
This article began as a stub intended to give context to the author of a source cited in another article, then quickly grew. It is well-written (if I do say so myself), comprehensive, and thoroughly researched. Significant effort went to tracking down source material—be it Kaske's short stories published as a student, or even the 1974 photo used in the article, provided by the photographer from the original negative. The article reviewed a thorough good-article review in May by Chiswick Chap, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Hawkeye7
How unusual to see and article on an academic. Have written many myself, but in general don't take them to featured. Article is in good shape; some suggestions:
- Suggest linking sophomore, junior, senior, Jesuit, magna cum laude, Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, PhD
- Done.
- "the school newspaper" The Xavier University Newswire?
- Titled the Xavier University News back then, but yep. Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- World War II: the narrative is a bit jumbled chronologically here, and might give the reader the impression that he returned from the Pacific before the war ended. The 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion departed San Francisco for Hawaii in March 1944, and went to Peleliu in February 1945. You can read more about its history here
- I thought about using that source, but wasn't sure about it, given that the source and author are unclear. It might be the same source noted in a footnote to Kaske's Festschrift, which says "The Modern Military Field Brance of the Military Archives Division of the National Archives and Records Administration provided a brief 'History of the 819th Tank Destroyer Battalion' and some other material concerning the 819th." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can we add the title of the PhD to article and the infobox? (Military service can also be added to the infobox using the module parameter with infobox military person)
- Done. Also trying to pin down the end date of Kaske's service (1945 or 1946), and a good source showing his promotion to First Lieutenant. Oddly, Find a Grave seems to have found a source for the latter, but I can't figure out where that site got it from. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Finally found this via Marquis Who's Who. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do we know the name of his PhD supervisor?
- It's in the article: "under George Coffman's direction, he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the Late Medieval poem Piers Plowman and graduated in 1950." --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Add df=y to the infobox date parameters to harmonize the article's date format
- Done.
- I think "Pennsylvanua" is a mispelling
- Fixed.
- Is Winston (Wink) Locklair really likely to get an article in the future?
- I'm not sure whether Wriston Locklair is likely to get an article, but I think he is likely notable enough for one. He was apparently well regarded as a critic before he joined Juilliard, and has a number of obituaries, including by The New York Times (link) and The Charlotte Observer (link). He's also frequently mentioned as an influence on his nephew, Dan Locklair. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Carol Vonckx, an English scholar who herself became a professor at Cornell" Yeah, in 1992.
- She was teaching at Cornell since 1963 but only became a full professor in 1992.[12] In the meantime she may have been an associate, assistant professor etc. In American academia all ranks of professor are called "professor", and full professor is the highest rank at many institutions. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- All good. Great work here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Hawkeye7. A couple responses above if you're interested. In response to your first comment, there are a couple other articles on academics I've brought here, e.g., Caroline Brady (philologist) and John Richard Clark Hall, and a couple others probably in the pipeline—mostly ones (like Kaske) of authors I cited and created a stub about, then went back to build out. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias
I'll go through this in the next day. Looks like a neat article so far. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Comments below:
- "straight-A student in high school" just in consideration for our non-North American audience, would it be better to use something like "top student" or something like that? I'm not opposed to the wording as is, just thinking out loud here.
- I think some nuance gets lost in the change to "top student" or similar, as a top student could still conceivably get some non-A grades along the way. But I've linked straight-A in case clarity is needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- "He was commissioned a second lieutenant even before graduation..." This comes out of nowhere, so it may be worth noting the year he started his studies at Xavier, so give context, especially as the dates of his MA and PhD are listed shortly after. I'd also drop the "even" here, as it seems superfluous.
- Reworded: "He was a four-year member of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and was commissioned a second lieutenant before his 1942 graduation; much of the next four years were spent with the Army in the South Pacific during World War II." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the "Early life and education" section, is it necessary to link Latin? Seems like a common enough thing to leave out.
- The relevant guideline says to avoid linking "major examples of ... languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)". Latin probably falls into that category, so I've removed the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "won the Latin contest" Is it "the" Latin contest, or "a" Latin contest? The former suggests to me that it's the definitive test out there, which I don't think is the case here. I'd lean towards using "a", or a qualifier ("won the school's Latin contest", for example).
- Per the source, "The achievements of young Robert during his high school and university years are better documented [than his early years]. He attended Elder High School, an all-male institution established in 1923 as the first of Cincinnati's interparochial high schools. In a curriculum not overburdened with frills, he completed four years of English, Latin, and religion without a grade below A, worked on the school newspaper and the yearbook, won the Latin contest, and played baseball." I assume the author got the information from the school yearbook, which I haven't yet been able to find a copy of. I've gone with your approach of saying he "won the school's Latin contest". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "In 1938 Kaske also matriculated at Xavier University..." I don't think the "also" is appropriate here. I get why it's used, but think you could reword it to simply say something like "After graduating from Elder High, Kaske matriculated at Xavier University. The year is implied that way, and it flows neater, to me at least.
- I was never in love with that sentence either. Changed to "After graduating from high school, Kaske matriculated at Xavier University". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "the name of the column meant 'So what?'" Should qualify it meant "So What?" in Latin.
- Clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "During a leave ... he took out a marriage license, served as a best man at a Thanksgiving wedding the next day in Cleburne, Texas, and married in January." This is a little unclear to me. From what I understand he took out a marriage license to get married himself, then served as a best man on the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday, to be anachronistic), and then had wedding in January. Is that accurate? I'll wait to hear back before looking at ways to clear it up.
- That's pretty much what it meant (although I had meant the first wedding was on Thanksgiving itself, not Black Friday), but looking at the sources again, I see that I mistakenly dated the first wedding by the date of the newspaper article, not by the date referred to in the article. I've now reworded the sentence to "During a leave at the end of 1943, while stationed at Fort Hood, he served as a best man at a wedding in Cleburne, Texas, took out his own marriage license a week later, and married in January." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Kaske left Washington University in 1957..." Was this due to his contract expiring, or some other reason? Curious if it can be clarified, but I understand if that's not possible.
- The sources tend to glance over this period, and don't discuss the reasons for his leaving. My guess, given Kaske's subsequent jumping around and his comment about publishing himself out of paradise at UNC, was by 1957 he had established some bona fides, and figured he could move up the academic ladder and/or head to a place with a more established program. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- "'Parris Island of medieval studies'": Having done graduate studies in history (albeit more modern, and more interdisciplinary), I can sympathize with that description for his program. That sounds intense, though I can see how it led to such a strong crop of future scholars.
- The publications section is quite lengthy, so I wonder if it would not be worth splitting that off into a stand-alone article/list (something like Bibliography of Robert Kaske?) In place leave the summary that's there, but as it stands the publications take up roughly two-thirds of the page on my computer, which is excessive.
- The bibliography of a scholar would seem to fit naturally into his biography. His Festschrift, after all, includes both. And given that dozens of his works are cited throughout the article, it would be a bit of a messy divide; dozens of works would be listed in both this article and the standalone bibliography. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Overall a solid article, and you do a good job of showing how Kaske impacted the academic world, which can of course be a challenge. I don't see anything major to address here, so look forward to giving it a final review, and likely support. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks much for the thoughtful comments, Kaiser matias. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Happy with the replies above. Still think the sources could go in it's own article, but I'm not going to hold it against the article, and appreciate your viewpoint on it. Happy to support a well-written article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- "Kaske, standing, discussing his paper which won seventh place in a 1942 intercollegiate writing contest" - this contradicts what is stated in the source
- There are two sources (newspaper and yearbook) here. The yearbook writes that
Host Robert E. Kaske, editor of the "Athenaeum" and Lawrence Splain, editor of the "News," won sixth and fifth places respectively in the Intercollegiate English Contest.
The newspaper article writes thatTwo Xavier University undergraduates won sixth and seventh places in an intercollegiate writing contest open to students in Jesuit colleges and universities of the Missouri and Chicago provinces, contest judges in St. Louis informed Rev. John J. Benson, dean of the Liberal Arts College, yesterday. Lawrence L. Splain, 5709 Doerger Lane, Cincinnati, a junior, won sixth place. Robert E. Kaske, 4216 St. martin Street, Cheviot, was awarded seventh.
I went with the newspaper's description of things given that it is closer in time to the contest, but have amended to account for the contradiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are two sources (newspaper and yearbook) here. The yearbook writes that
- Be consistent in how locations are formatted
- Done. Large cities are given without clarification (e.g., London or Philadelphia), but smaller cities are given clarification (e.g., Houston, Missouri). --Usernameunique (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't done consistently - for example Chapel Hill has a larger population than Urbana, but the former includes state and the latter does not
- Fn2: Simian is the publisher, not work title. Ditto FN123, check for others
- I don't feel strongly about this, but are these not both the work title and the publisher, in which case (per Template:Cite web § Publisher) the publisher name is omitted? --Usernameunique (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why would these be work titles? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, because as far as I can tell, those two websites are named "Herson Wagner Funeral Home" and "George Simian". What else would be considered the work names for those sources? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The domain name, particularly in the latter case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, I've changed the "| website =" parameter to "georgesimian.com", and the "| publisher =" parameter to "George Simian". I've also checked the other works using {{cite web}}, and don't think they present any issues. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple pages should use "pp", and be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated
- Yikes, there were a lot of those. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- How are you ordering Bibliography?
- Alphabetically (fixed the one error). --Usernameunique (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether you include locations and/or publishers for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Locations and publishers are included whenever possible (and I've added one in response to this comment), although at times the journal does not make this clear. Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association says it is printed at Brigham Young University, for instance, without making clear whether it considers Provo, Utah to be the journal's location. And then Old English Newsletter is "Published for The Old English Division of the Modern Language Association of America by The Center for Medieval And Early Renaissance Studies, SUNY-Binghamton", leaving it unclear as to which one to use. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
I agree with Kaiser matias above that his publications should spinout into their own article. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY says "If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works...is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." I believe it has reached this threshold, as it takes up a large portion of the article. It is expected that an academic will have a large body of publications, especially an important academic in their field like Kaske. This large list makes it difficult for the reader to know which of his works are the most noteworthy and notable. Other FAs on prolific writers, such as Maya Angelou and Lilias Armstrong, have split off their published works. Caroline Brady (philologist) does not split off her works, but she only has 17 works listed, while Kaske's article has much more than 17. I suggest that this section is split into its own article. Then, in a "Selected works" section we can hatnote his list of publications and include his most important works (and works mentioned in the article) in a shorter list. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to the relevant guideline, "Lists of published works should be included for authors", and "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." The only other list of Kaske's publications (which is mostly, but not entirely, complete) is contained within his Festschrift, an out-of-print book from 1986. So it is clear that Kaske's works should be listed—the only question is where.
- The guideline does not suggest what it means for a list of publications to be so long that it is "unsuitable" for inclusion within the article on the author. Z1720, your concern is that the list makes it difficult for a reader to discern which works are the most notable. But a significant number are, such that there would be little to whittle down. As one colleague observed, "Given that Kaske published no other book and that his list of other publications weighs in at about sixty items, including eleven book reviews, some not well acquainted with the scope of his work might ask why he enjoyed such enormous prestige. ... The answer to the query is relatively simple. First, so many of his articles, even the shorter ones, were seminal studies". (Sowell 1989, p. 119.) And it is unclear how to do the whittling without engaging in guesswork or original research. The best we can do is to mention the articles that people writing about Kaske themselves mentioned. This is done is the first paragraph of "Publications", which guides the reader "to know which of his works are the most noteworthy and notable".
- Finally, a note about length. The article on Caroline Brady lists 17 publications, because 17 publications is all she wrote; had she written more, I would have included them. The article on John Richard Clark Hall lists 25 publications, because 25 publications is all he wrote (well, that I could find). For the same reason, the article on Herbert Maryon lists 49 publications. Kaske, for his part, published 65 books, chapters, articles, and reviews. It's not that much more, and given that dozens of his works are cited in the article, not many could be removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented here and to other editors above and below me. The articles that were given as examples to justify including more works (Hall and Maryon) both have less works listed than this article, and Maryon was one editor opposed for the length of the published works by one editor, and another recommended the the list be spun out. My biggest thought about this list is an adage that "If everything is special, nothing is special". In other words, if everything is listed, then nothing is important enough for the reader to know about. My recommendation is that any works talked about in the article prose should be listed in a Selected Works sections, and everything else can be placed in a separate "List of" article. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Z1720, I still think that it is appropriate to keep the list of publications in the main article. But reasonable minds may differ, of course, and there is no obviously correct approach here—which is well evidenced by the fact that you began with one suggested approach, then switched to another. As said below, keeping all publications here is "not unreasonable", and that should be enough.
- I do wish to correct a significant misreading of the Maryon nomination. No editor ever opposed that nomination due to his list of works. One editor offered an unrelated oppose—due solely to the many citations once used in the lead—and then struck it once the citations were removed. Separately, the same editor sought to clarify that the nomination could not be used to justify the inclusion of "hundreds of entries" in a list of publications—the example there being James F. Leckman and his 473 publications. Happily, however, we are not even close to that point. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented here and to other editors above and below me. The articles that were given as examples to justify including more works (Hall and Maryon) both have less works listed than this article, and Maryon was one editor opposed for the length of the published works by one editor, and another recommended the the list be spun out. My biggest thought about this list is an adage that "If everything is special, nothing is special". In other words, if everything is listed, then nothing is important enough for the reader to know about. My recommendation is that any works talked about in the article prose should be listed in a Selected Works sections, and everything else can be placed in a separate "List of" article. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
HF
Will review this one. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- "and joined The Traditionists, which that year devoted their meetings to reading Dante's Inferno" - what were the Traditionalists? a literary club?
- Yep. Changed to "... The Traditionists, a literary club which that year devoted their meetings ..." --Usernameunique (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note 4: the storm trooper link - how did you determine the link should go to the WWI unit, rather than the Nazi Sturmabteilung (sometimes referred to as the "Nazi Storm Troopers")? The quote is late enough it could refer to either
- I didn't realize that there were more than one unit referred to as "Storm Troopers". Any suggestions for what to link to, or to just take out the link entirely? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: - Recommend just removing the link entirely, if it's not certain what the intended meaning is (see MOS:LINKQUOTE). Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense, Hog Farm, removed. I also linked Sieg Heil, which is unambiguous, and makes the same intended point. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems weird to me to have note 6 talking about him returning to UNC placed before where it is mentioned that he left UNC
- Moved the note to the end of the paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note 7 seems trivial, I'm not sure that it's needed
- I could be convinced to take it out, but thought it was fun and interesting. Keep in mind, the source's author (Thomas D. Hill, a colleague of Kaske at Cornell) thought it relevant to include the story to illustrate the point he was making about Kaske's impressive library. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't think that the full length of publications is something that should be displayed here. Recommend splitting off to Robert Kaske bibliography or some variant of that title.
- Responded above. As to your below points, I'm not sure that the percentage of the article's length that the list of publications takes up is really relevant—it's no longer than the "References" section, after all, and long references sections don't get moved to separate articles. And as for the Quid Ergo articles, the relevant guideline (quoted above) recommends including them, and a dozen are cited in the article as it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. The major sticking point for me is the long list of publications that takes up more space on the page than the article itself should be split off to a subarticle. I agree with Kaiser Matias and Z1720 on this. The long list of every Quid Ergo? article written by him is especially bloating here. Recommending keeping the introduction and the most important items, and then splitting off and pointing to there with the {{main}} template. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Hog Farm. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Carillon
The carillon is an Old World musical instrument, emerging from centuries-old, interconnected traditions of bell-ringing, time-keeping, metalworking, and more. It is one of the only musical instruments that you cannot play in private—everyone in earshot must bear witness to your performance. There are fewer than 1,300 carillons worldwide according to the most generous counts; it is fascinating to learn about an instrument where the population is a critical component to its existence. One of the biggest struggles for those who love this instrument is to spread awarnesss of it. My teacher calls the carillon "the world's longest and best kept secret." What better way than to have a high-quality, encyclopedic article freely available for all!
Since its creation in 2002, this article has not been in the best shape. I've been working to improve it since January of this year. I am grateful for Aza24, who was particularly picky during the GA nomination, for Gerda Arendt, who gave me plenty of advice in both the formal peer review and informally, and for Twofingered Typist, who did great copyediting work. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to this review. Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Fixed.
- File:Twinkle_Twinkle_Little_Star_on_the_Netherlands_Carillon.ogg: what's the copyright status of the arrangement? Ditto File:Luksemburgo,_katedralo_dNS,_kariljono,_1.ogg, File%3AJingle_Bell_Rock_played_on_the_University_of_Michigan_carillon.webm
- Comment: for the second file, I cannot recognize the melody. It sounds like an automated melody before an hour strike or an improvisation—not sure. For the other two, I realize the music is not in the public domain. However, I will attempt to get permission from the rightsholders before we remove the files. I think Commons has a process to document that.
- I realize that the Jingle Bell Rock video is absolutely not free to use—a little embarrassing. I marked it for deletion on Commons and uploaded a different Creative Commons-licensed YouTube video. The music in this video is composed by Matthias Vanden Gheyn—guaranteed in the public domain. I am still going to reach out to the rightsholder for the Twinkle Twinkle Little Star recording. Thrakkx (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Last update: the recordings currently in the article are way more trouble than they're worth in terms of licensing. I looked through Commons and found this file (File:Fixed Pattern of Distant Stars by Tiffany Ng and Jen Wang.ogg), which has its own template explaining that every component of the recording is properly licensed with CC-BY-SA 4.0. The source link is dead, but I found another source confirming the terms of the license. I will go ahead and use this one recording and keep the new video. So, everything listed in this image review (except the pending OTRS) should be solved. Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I realize that the Jingle Bell Rock video is absolutely not free to use—a little embarrassing. I marked it for deletion on Commons and uploaded a different Creative Commons-licensed YouTube video. The music in this video is composed by Matthias Vanden Gheyn—guaranteed in the public domain. I am still going to reach out to the rightsholder for the Twinkle Twinkle Little Star recording. Thrakkx (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: for the second file, I cannot recognize the melody. It sounds like an automated melody before an hour strike or an improvisation—not sure. For the other two, I realize the music is not in the public domain. However, I will attempt to get permission from the rightsholders before we remove the files. I think Commons has a process to document that.
- File:O_Canada_and_God_Save_the_King_instrumental_1927.ogg: links are dead, and what's the status of this work in the US?
- Comment: I searched the website of the dead link to no success. The Canadian public domain reasoning given by the Commons uploader checks out according to quick research. For the U.S., I don't think it enters the public domain until January 1, 2023. I've never seen this happen on Commons—is it allowed?
- No - Commons only allows files that are free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I see, then it seems it will have to be removed. This is surprising to me, given that the file has been on Commons since 2008. Is there a process to have someone more qualified at Commons do their own invesgiation? Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- You could either post to commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, or nominate it for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I see, then it seems it will have to be removed. This is surprising to me, given that the file has been on Commons since 2008. Is there a process to have someone more qualified at Commons do their own invesgiation? Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- No - Commons only allows files that are free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I searched the website of the dead link to no success. The Canadian public domain reasoning given by the Commons uploader checks out according to quick research. For the U.S., I don't think it enters the public domain until January 1, 2023. I've never seen this happen on Commons—is it allowed?
- File:Earliest_Carillonneur_Picture.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Church_bell_cutaway.png
- Added.
- File:Comparison_of_two_carillon_transmission_systems.jpg: is there a link to the original source? What were the terms of permission for adaptation?
- Comment: There is no link. I am personally connected to the author, and received his written permission via email to combine and use two images from his 1993 thesis (which is cited in the article sources) under the license with which I uploaded it.
- Can you submit that permission to OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no link. I am personally connected to the author, and received his written permission via email to combine and use two images from his 1993 thesis (which is cited in the article sources) under the license with which I uploaded it.
- File:Stolen_Bells_during_WWI.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not sure. I uploaded it to Commons because I believe this image is in the public domain according to Ukrainian and U.S. law since this was captured in 1915. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Public domain in the US is generally based on date of publication, not creation - being captured in 1915 doesn't in itself make the image free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not sure. I uploaded it to Commons because I believe this image is in the public domain according to Ukrainian and U.S. law since this was captured in 1915. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- Carillons with 23 to 27 bells and 35 to 39 bells are classified as two-octave and three-octave carillons, respectively. Players of these instruments often use music written specifically for the limited ranges." Is this footnoted?
- Whoops, added.
- "" the Committee for Public Safety published instructions for extracting the copper from bells." This is, I assume, the same thing as the melting down for cannons noted at the end of the paragraph? If so, why say it twice?
- Comment: I mention this to explain why the French wanted to remove bells from village towers. How about this wording?: After publishing instructions for extracting copper from bell bronze, the Republic sought to dismantle local carillons to reduce its copper shortage. That way, this sentence explains why the bells were removed and the end of the paragraph explains what the copper was used for.
- " bellfounders installed 43 carillons in North America, namely the United States and Canada." Why do we need to mention North America given that Canada and the US are mentioned? Obviously there are other parts of North America but they don't seem involved here.
- Removed.
- DId nothing of significance in the history of the carillon occur between the late 1940s and 1999?
- Comment: Most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons.
- " Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" " is at least double-linked
- Comment: It is linked twice (three times if we include the image caption, but as far as I'm aware, that one doesn't count). This was brought up in the GAN. My justification for the second link is that it is part of quite a bold statement: ...the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" remains the most sought-after educational program for the carillon in the world.
- I would suspect the American public is most familiar with the Netherlands Carillon near Washington, D.C, since it is often visited on tourist trips through Arlington Cemetery. Possibly some mention could be made of it.
Support from Gerda
- Support per my comments in the peer review. I may go over the article once more after more changes, but that will perhaps result in comments, not in no support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Aza24
- Happy to Support per my GAN review and look through just now. A thoroughly researched and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from Hawkeye7
- Like Wehwalt, well outside my my field of expertise. There is one within earshot, but I haven't heard it lately; it think it is down for maintenance. I made a minor change. Looks fine to me. No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- The National Carillon in Canberra – one of three carillons in Australia! Thrakkx (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported in the text. For example, the lead states the instrument "experienced a peak in the mid-18th century"; the text has a much broader range for this peak.
- Fixed.
- "Tremolos offered a solution to a Romantic-era limitation of the carillon: its inability to reproduce sustained notes expressively" - source?
- Fixed. The citation on the previous sentence also covered that one—whoops.
- What makes TowerBells a high-quality reliable source? Essential Vermeer?
- TowerBells is as high-quality of a source as the WCF carillon registry and the Peace Carillons registry in that there is only one way to conduct these counts: mailing survey forms to towers that could potentially be housing bells. TowerBells was originally sponsored by the Guild of Carillonneurs in North America (GCNA), but the curator chose to sever professional connections and publish the information themselves (source for this claim). Yes, WP:SPS comes to mind, however it is THE source that carillonneurs use for statistics and general knowledge. For example, this message (page 3) from the GCNA president cites TowerBells, long after the professional connection was severed. If we compare it to other registries, we can easily see that TowerBells is the highest-quality source. The WCF registry is clearly dated and of a lower quality than TowerBells.org. It lacks so much critical information on a particular carillon (year installed, history of renovations/upgrades, exact location, current and past players/owners, etc.) that TowerBells provides, and may not have been updated in many years, as newer carillons listed on TowerBells are not listed at the WCF. It goes without saying that the distribution of carillons across the world is arguably one of the most important talking points for this article. TowerBells is the most rigorous and well-rounded source available.
- Oops, I did not realize I was still citing Essential Vermeer. That article series was written in memory of André Lehr, and is largely based off his campanology textbook. I thought I replaced all the Vermeer citations with equivalent citations from Lehr's textbook – Fixed.
- Several entities are entered in work title fields in the citation templates that would be better described as publishers - eg WCF. Please check throughout.
- Fixed. I was unsure about TowerBells.org, so I kept it under the website parameter.
- FN36: are there any independent sources supporting this claim? Ditto FN89
- For FN36, I added a source from the GCNA corroborating the Kirk in the Hills carillon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that Kirk in the Hills describing the fact that it is tied with the Sout Korean carillon is neutral enough.
- What specifically does the GCNA source say? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- For FN89, there is no other source supporting the library's claim. Not surprising – it is an obscure library supporting a tiny community. I reworded the sentence about it from "it contains one of the world's largest collections" to "it contains large collections".
- For FN36, I added a source from the GCNA corroborating the Kirk in the Hills carillon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that Kirk in the Hills describing the fact that it is tied with the Sout Korean carillon is neutral enough.
- Check that page ranges consistently use "pp" rather than "p", and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
- Fixed. I do not see any citations that deviate from the abbreviated method (e.g. 1##–##, 2##–##)
- How are you ordering entries in Internet?
- The original intent was ordering by author last name if available, then alphabetical by title, but I see that has mostly fallen apart over time. Now ordering alphabetically by title.
- Why so many External links entries?
- I removed two links: Essential Vermeer (no longer needed) and TowerBells (already cited)
- How does Swager meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- Swager wrote his dissertation while studying in Flanders as a Fullbright Scholar and also while in France under a (French) government grant. He notes that 1) made several Dutch-language sources available to English speakers via incorporating their information into his thesis and compiling a bibliography, and 2) he contacted a "national organization" of carillonneurs (likely the GCNA as he is American) to meet with other experts. As Indiana University itself had its carillon back then, I assume good faith in that the university had made available subject matter experts to review the dissertation. A quick search on Google Scholar shows that his dissertation has been cited once in 2017. This is not significant for most topics, but for the carillon, which sees little research in comparison to other musical instruments, it is.
- The website for the North American Carillon School appears to be dead - is there any more information about this publisher?
- I do not see what you mean here, the link in External links is up-to-date (they recently switched URLs from "carillonschoolusa.com" to "northamericancarillonschool.com", though I updated the link as soon as the new site went live). I removed "/home" from the URL in case that was causing an issue. Can you try again?
- DeepBlue is a repository - it should be credited using
|via=
if at all, and the original publication information (if relevant) should be included in full. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)- Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: forgot to ping you. Thrakkx (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- No pending issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
- "Though the word carillonneur literally refers to carillon players that are men, the French carillonneuse to denote women is not used." I think it needs to specify earlier in the sentence that the article is talking about the French language. Perhaps, "The French language has a separate word for female carillon players (carilloneuse), but this was not adopted for the English language."
- "the carillon's pedals are shorter and thicker and spaced far apart." -> "the carillon's pedals are shorter, thicker, and spaced far apart."
- Fixed.
- Redlink "Guild of Carillonneurs"?
- Added, though an article once existed and was deleted via PROD in 2013.
- "The carillon's cast bronze, cup-shaped bells" is the word "cast" supposed to be there, or is there supposed to be a comma after cast? I might be wrong though.
- Comment: should be there with no comma.
- "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur, who was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." -> "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur and was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." To remove a comma and flow.
- Fixed.
- "that his father had begun installing on the cathedral carillon further." Is further supposed to be here?
- Yikes, "further" should appear immediately before "developed" – Fixed.
- "The book painted an idealized picture" idealized picture of what?
- Of the region (the Low Countries) – Fixed.
- "to help establish a carillon school" Delete help
- Removed.
- "was seen as an annihilation of a unique, democratic musical instrument." Was seen by whom?
- By the Allied Powers of each World War – Fixed.
- "Price capitalized on this unique opportunity to publish a study on the ideal tonal qualities of Europe's bells." Delete unique, it's a little outside WP:WIKIVOICE and unnecessary.
- Removed.
- I'm surprised that there is nothing in the history section from post-WWII to 1999. Is there any significant history of the carillon to note for this period?
- Comment: most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons and the establishment of the World Carillon Federation (which is discussed in the Organization and education section).
- I would add brief comments in the history section about the development of the North American style, and keep information in the music section focused on the characteristics and major composers of the North American style. I would also add information about the creation of the World Carillon Federation. Perhaps something like, "In the 1950s and 1960s, a North American style of carillon music emerged. Its creation was led by Ronald Barnes, a professor at the University of Kansas, who created new compositions for the instrument and encouraged his peers to compose for the instrument as well. In the 1970s, the World Carillon Federation was formed as the central organization for carillon players and their enthusiasts." Keeps it short, gives a history of this time period, and this information is expanded upon later. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons and the establishment of the World Carillon Federation (which is discussed in the Organization and education section).
- "Only about 15 collections of carillon music written before 1900 are known to exist." Is there an exact number we can use here, instead of "Only about"?
- Comment: the source says "Today some fifteen collections with music from the heyday of the carillon are extant." Using "heyday of the carillon" seems much too vague for this article, but I realize that using an exact year is actually incorrect. "Heyday" is referring to the period between the mid-17th and late-18th centuries. How about: "Some 15 collections of carillon music written in the 17th and 18th centuries are known to exist."?
- "The music is clearly arranged for, rather than composed for" Delete clearly as it's unnecessary.
- Removed.
- "are the famous eleven preludes of Matthias Vanden Gheyn." Delete famous, per MOS:PUFFERY and I don't think it's needed.
- Removed.
Those are my thoughts! Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I appreciate the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Coord note
Hi Thrakkx, I think this is your first FAC? If so we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the reviewers above might be able to undertake, or you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, that is correct. I'll post a request on the talk page now. Thrakkx (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Spot-check
- 84: Can I have a copy of page 127 of OCLC 765849175?
- 130: 'scuse me, but this looks like 11 not 20. And what makes this a reliable source?
- I am not sure what you mean. I am counting 19 entries on that page with the identifier "trad". How are you arriving at 11? For my explanation on TowerBells' reliability, see the third bullet in the source review.
- 34: I would probably say "more than 226 metric tons"; 500,000 pounds is less than 227 metric tons.
- Good catch; fixed.
- 52: Can I have copies of the two pages cited here?
- 15: Seems like it's 51 bells not 49, unless the photo is only about the new ones. Same question about whether http://www.towerbells.org/ is a reliable source.
- The source's "Remarks" says there are 51 bells in the tower; however two of them are swinging bells and not part of the carillon. "Technical data" right below reports that it is a 49-bell carillon. And again see the third bullet of the source review.
- 45: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 25: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 57: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 99: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 119: I can't see the definition on the webpage mentioned.
- Right, my mistake. The definition is located on its "Organization" page, which I in Reference 35. I added it immediately after Reference 119.
- 114: OK. I wonder how you found this program though; did you systematically search every university website?
- So the list of universities existed before I began working on this article. I did not systematically search for all universities with a carillon for potential academic programs, but rather I tried to preserve the already present, unsourced information about specific American universities by adding sources. For Iowa State University, the concert program was the best I could do. If this is an unacceptable source, I can remove the university from the list.
- 68: Can I have a copy of the page cited here? Also, I am not sure that the first link supports any of the claims.
- Is the "first link" Thorne? I include the rape of Belgium because of this quote from Thorne: "Bells were used in early-WW I propaganda to decry 'the rape of Belgium.' "
- 102: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 32: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 47: The source does not mention the 16th century, and at least one sentence was taken entirely from there.
- You are right about 16th century: removed. Oops, removed the plagiarism. I checked all other Swager references and removed one instance of too-close paraphrasing.
- 112: Hrm, doesn't this source merely say that the university has a carillon?
- This page is a subpage of "Keyboard Studies", which lists a faculty member as the director of the carillon and organ programs. The page the article currently links to also shows that auditions are required to participate in the carillon program. Would it be better to link to the Keyboard Studies page?
- 23: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 60: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
- 8: This should probably say "Ng and Lewis" rather than just "Ng" as it seems like the script was written by more than one person. Also, it might help
- I am not sure what you mean. Reference 8 says "Ng & Lewis 2020, p. 1."
- Means that since two people wrote the source, the article ought to mention both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. Reference 8 says "Ng & Lewis 2020, p. 1."
- 118: Why was this particular group selected for inclusion?
- It is a registry sponsored by the University of Leuven, the Carnegie Foundation, and the City of The Hague, among others, which I feel makes it a great selection among the "themed" registries I could have chosen. For reference, every regional carillon organization counts the carillons in their region, so I had a handful of registries to choose from.
Imma say, this is a rather large number of citations where I have follow-up questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, all comments will be addressed. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: how specifically am I to provide you with source copies? Via email? Thrakkx (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:: ? Thrakkx (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Aye, screenshots per email or something like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:: ? Thrakkx (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Operation Grapple
This article is about the British nuclear tests in the Pacific, where the first British thermonuclear devices were detonated. It is part of the Good Topic on British nuclear weapons. If successful, it will be the twelfth article in the topic to achieve featured status, and the whole topic will become featured. It wasn't my first choice for a FAC nomination, but I do think it is a worthy and interesting article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are some sections such as Grapple Z series, Grapple Series, and especially Preparations that are very long, harming readability. I would advise splitting into smaller subsections. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tkbrett
I'm generally not a contributor to military history articles, but I'm a big fan of your work, so I'll give this one a go. Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone as far as the end of the Preparations section and will carry on tomorrow. Thoughts so far: the prose is fantastic; there's nothing unnecessarily ostentatious and it is exceedingly readable. That said, I think that adding subsections to the Preparations section would greatly improve readability given its length.
- In July 1954, the Cabinet decided to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is somewhat implied by the last sentence of the previous paragraph, but I think it would be helpful to add why the Cabinet felt it necessary to proceed with an H bomb.
- I think tamper can be piped to neutron reflector.
- I should have a go at rewriting those articles. Last time I got only as far as revising the section on the Discovery of nuclear fission, which I made into a separate article. The tamper is not a neutron reflector. Its main role is to hold the core together for a shake or two longer thereby increasing the yield. By using a depleted uranium tamper which fissions from fast neutrons, the tamper also increases the yield that way too. About 30% of the yield of the Fat Man bomb used at Nagasaki came from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Truman, Attlee and Eden aren't introduced or linked to.
- The bombs would be detonated with a clockwork timer rather than a barometric switch. This meant that they had to be dropped from 45,000 feet (14,000 m).: I'm not clear on the connection here. Why does the use of a clockwork timer mean they had to be dropped from 45,000'?
- A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
- g ≈ 10 m/s2, so we have
-
- Ah, understood.
-
- Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
- A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can Taylor instability be piped to Rayleigh–Taylor instability?
I've looked through this article quite carefully again but I haven't found any obvious areas for improvement. This is a very well written and well researched article. Despite its technical nature it manages to convey information to the non-expert without any dumbing-down of content. For these reasons I'm happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Valereee
- The lead sentence reads Operation Grapple was a set of four British nuclear weapons test series...the combination of set and series stopped me. It's a set of a series rather than a series of tests or a set of four series of tests? —valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the lead, second para: "The designs had to be tested to demonstrate that they worked." This is the sentence in the lead that actually tells us: here's what this whole article is about. Should we use the term Operation Grapple in this sentence? Like, "Operation Grapple was the program to test these designs to demonstrate that they worked" or something?
- Maybe links on first TJ and PJ?
- Added a link. MOS:UNITNAMES: Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I had assumed that the units were familiar since joules are on your gas bill. Mine tells me that I use 7,500 MJ per year. So a hydrogen bomb produces enough energy to heat my house for a million years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You look at your gas bill? :D I recognize joule, and assumed these were multiples of that, but I didn't recognize TJ and PJ as abbreviations. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what a "blind radar test drop" is/means. Is there something it could be linked to?
- Alas not. It just means using the radar bomb sight instead of the optical one. The closest we have is H2S (radar), but the Mark 7 was used in Operation Grapple. Blind bombing links to Oboe, which is not what we want. Maybe Maury Markowitz has a suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Back from vaykay. This normally refers to H2S. "blind bombing" is a generic term for all sorts of technologies, and using H2S is one example among many. But blind radar really limits you to H2S for the UK. That said, "blind bombing" should absolutely not link to Oboe! Now I call attention to "Once in the air, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter. Grandy then authorised a visual drop." This may be referring to Oboe, or a similar technology. Not worth holding up for, but seems to deserve further research in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Valereee, don't feel pressured to support (or oppose) outright if you've only focussed on a particular aspect of the article. The coords read reviewer comments, not just the bolded declarations of support or opposition, so what you've contributed is useful no matter what. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "and the restoration of the nuclear Special Relationship with the United States with the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement." with/with. Can this be rephrased to avoid?
- "Temperatures are high, averaging 88 °F (31 °C) during the day and 78 °F (26 °C) at night, and humidity is very high, usually around 98 per cent." Why the present tense given that the rest of the passage is in the past tense and you're relying on a 1960 source?
- "Air Commodore Wilfrid Oulton was appointed task force commander on 6 February 1956,[41][20]" refs out of order. Is this intended?
- " the Panama Canal, passing through the narrowest locks with just inches to spare." All the locks of the original Panama Canal were and are, as far as I can tell from a google search (and my own knowledge, having passed through on cruise ships several times) the same size. Does your source say otherwise?
- " It was ultimately joined by four more RFAs, Fort Constantine, Gold Ranger, Fort Rosalie, Wave Prince and Salvictor.[52]" But you list five ships.
- " the Republic of Fiji Military Forces." Fiji was not independent until 1970 nor a republic until 1987. Were these forces called that then?
- "the tests were denounced as a hoax intended to deceive the Americans into resuming nuclear cooperation;" This is a bit unclear. Denounced when? And by whom?
- In the 1990s. Added some names, but they don't have articles. The London Review of Books article is in the sources. One thing I've discovered over the years is that by adding retrospect, it is often possible to reconstruct events in a form that makes more sense than what actually happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fijian Navy our article on same says that it was not formed until 1975.
- "nightly radio programs" Should this be "programmes" if this is British English?
- "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, who gave verbal approval, and a handful of officials.[120]" This would be Macmillan, but you do not say so (the last UK PM referred to is Eden) and when you finally refer to Macmillan, you do not link or say who he is.
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dumelow
Hi Hawkeye7, It's been a long time since I studied any nuclear physics but I've taken a non-technical read through and make the following comments on the prose. I've only got down to "Grapple series" so far but will complete the review later - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Background
- "In November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike, the first successful test of a true thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb. Britain was therefore still several years behind in nuclear weapons technology", this suggests to the reader that thermonuclear devices were more modern or desirable but not why. Maybe "more powerful" or something would help here?
- "A Cabinet meeting 27 July accepted this argument, and directed the Lord President to proceed with the development of thermonuclear weapons." missing "on" before date
- "The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire was directed by William Penney, with William Cook as his deputy." The article for the AWE states it was known as the "Atomic Weapons Research Establishment" until 1987
- Location
- "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956" the only British weapon you've previously described as boosted is Orange Herald, but presumably this wasn't tested this early. What weapon was tested? Or was it non-detonation testing?
- The tests involved detonations. Orange Herald was a boosted weapon, but the important point was that it had an oraalloy tamper. Re-worded to clarify this.
- Also: "This was a sensitive matter; there was an agreement with Australia that no thermonuclear testing would be carried out there" You've previously only described Green Bamboo and Green Granite as thermonuclear and neither of these were tested until much later.
- "which was larger than the 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) limit on tests in Australia" this is presumably a different limit to the 2.5x Hurricane limit you mention in the previous sentence, as this would be 62.5 kilotonnes?
- Preparations
- "HMS Narvik would reprise the role of control ship it had in Hurricane; but it was also required for Mosaic, and had very little time to return to the Chatham Dockyard for a refit before heading out to Christmas Island for Grapple" Would "it had also been required for Mosaic" be better, as this was a past event?
- RFA Fort Constantine, HMS Messina seem to be plausible redlinks. Potentially J. E. S. Stone also (he only reached brigadier but was a CBE)
- "Narvik would have to spend long periods of time at Malden," I don't think we've said Malden was to be the site of the bomb test yet, last time it was mentioned it was still a toss up between it and McKean.
- "By the end of April, 31 of the men, and all the women and children had been taken to Fanning Island by RAF Hastings" you've only mentioned the full name of the aircraft in a caption previously so I missed it and was momentarily confused, perhaps expand to Handley Page Hastings and link?
- Grapple series
- "The yield was a very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ), even less than Short Granite." We've previously stated that the Short Granite test was also 300 kilotonnes so either there's a rounding issue or it should be "about the same as Short Granite"?
- "chalked up" strikes me as a bit colloquial
- "sports such as soccer" football in British English, never soccer. If absolutely necessary (I don't think so in this case as a misunderstanding is not going to change anything important) "association football".
- Grapple X
- "Rear Admiral Patrick from the US Navy, and Brigadier General John W. White from the USAF" Do we know Patrick's first name? Also probably both redlinkable
- Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Created a new article on White at John W. White (general) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple Z Series
- I don't think the location of the Pendant and Burgee tests are not explicitly stated, were they above Christmas Island itself? Likewise locations of Flagpole and Halliard, which were presumably somewhere off the coast?
- "This was the first live drop of a British nuclear weapon using blind radar technique" I am not sure I understand this bit. Does it mean it was aimed by radar alone?
- Aftermath
- "The British decided to adapt the Mark 28 as a British weapon as a cheaper alternative to doing their own development, which became Red Snow." Link Mark 28 to B28 nuclear bomb
- "Other weapons were supplied through Project E, under which weapons in American custody were supplied for the use of the RAF and British Army." Repetition of "supplied" maybe replace the second one with "provided" or similar?
- " Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium was sent to the US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium between 1960 and 1979, replacing production of the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire, although much of the highly enriched uranium was used not for weapons, but as fuel for the growing UK fleet of nuclear submarines." Feels like a very long sentence
Support on prose. One follow up question: you say the 1960-79 supply of American enriched Uranium "replaced production from the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire". Capenhurst is still producing to this day (I think), for power station use, was it not producing anything in this period or just not for nuclear weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- It produces enriched uranium for power stations but no longer the highly enriched uranium used for weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion. (Hill, An Atomic Empire, p. 99) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources review
All paras have at least one citation at the end, and the article is closely cited throughout, there are no formatting issues, with one exception (see below) all necessary ref fields are there to enable verification, the sources all look reliable to me except fn 62 and 63 (given what they are citing is very mundane orbat information, I think they can be given a pass), and the MA dissertation mentioned below. The only outstanding queries are:
- The London Review of Books cite (Dombey and Grove) uses page numbers, but the linked online version doesn't have page numbers, thus there should probably be an issn for the hard copy referred to.
- Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, McIntyre's MA dissertation is questionable. Has it been shown to have had significant scholarly influence? If not, it is probably not reliable.
- Pringle's Guardian article is used as a ref, so should be dropped from the EL list.
That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- All good then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Z1720
I love history, though not well read in military history. Consider me a non-expert.
- There's a lot of fascinating reading to be had in reviewing Wikipedia articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "They were part of New Zealand" -> "The islands were" or "The Kermadec Islands were" Since it's the beginning of a paragraph, it is better to specify what is being talked about.
- "Cook would be the Scientific Director." I think per MOS:JOBTITLE this would be scientific director (no capitals.)
- "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ). But it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." The second sentence is awkward for me. Perhaps, "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ), but it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." (change the period before "but" to a comma)
- "The physicists at Aldermaston had plenty of ideas about how to follow up Grapple X. Possibilities were discussed in September 1957." I would merge these sentences by saying "about how to follow up Grapple X and possibilities were discussed"
- "of a three-layer Dick that used lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7), but more of it, " -> "of a three-layer Dick that used a greater amount of lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7)," ?
- "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." Too many commas that ruin the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The possibility of a moratorium of testing caused the plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, to be restricted to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." I'm still not thrilled with the amount of commas in my suggestion, but it's better imo.
- "Once in the air, though, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter." remove though to increase sentence flow?
- "British timing was good." This feels like editorialising. Who was it good for? Also, it's a weird way to start this paragraph. I would delete and explain why the timing was good later in the paragraph.
- "Now, suddenly, there was incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead." -> "This gave incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead in..." This gets rid of some commas. Also, what were the Soviet Union ahead in?
- "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis." -> "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend their relationship, which had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis."
- "Malden Island is uninhabited. Penrhyn Island is part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand." These are awkward because the paragraph starts in past-tense, then switches to present-tense without a lead-in. Perhaps, ""Penrhyn Island remained part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand. Malden Island remains uninhabited."
- "and paid for by a veterans' organisation[160] in New Zealand" Can the citation go after New Zealand?
- "However, in another test done by the same Massey University team, for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes, the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this, non-germline abnormality, was found." -> "The same Massey University team did another test for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes and the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this non-germline abnormality was found." Again, trying to delete some commas for flow.
- In ref 164, since you have places academic journals in the "References" section, this ref should also be a sfn with the longer text placed in references.
- The ISBN for "Macmillan, Harold (1971)" needs dashes to be consistent with the other sources.
- Why is the pdf in "Further reading" not used as a source in the article?
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
- WP:Further reading: Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate Fortunately my own Masters thesis is considered reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
TRM
Lead
- "of thermonuclear weapons," hydrogen bomb already links to this.
- "a nuclear weapons project" atomic bomb already links to this.
- "scientists participated in the British contribution to the Manhattan Project" -> "scientists contributed to the Manhattan Project" to avoid repeat of British.
- "The successful test ... in the meantime" mega-sentence needs split.
- "Cabinet agreed" may not be understandable and we call it "the Cabinet".
- "The first test in the Operation Grapple series" The first test ... you've literally only just mentioned Op Grapple so don't do it again.
- "Despite its failure" well it only failed one aspect, the yield, so perhaps just "Despite this..."
- "a disappointing 300 kilotonnes" keep "disappointing" out of the lead, it's POV.
- "series was required. This series consisted" merge.
- "300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ)" yet "1.8 megatonnes" is equivalent to 7.5 PJ? Why not 7.8 PJ?
- "single test, Grapple Y, in April 1958, another design was tested" test tested... repetitive.
- What's a "tamper"?
- Enough is enough. I've created a new stub article, Tamper (nuclear weapons), and linked to that. Added a short explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "what they were doing" reads like a tabloid.
- "a blind radar test drop" what is that?
Background
- General question: You use Britain (not Great Britain) and United Kingdom interchangeably. Is that correct? They're not the same thing.
- "September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement" no link/article?
- It has no article, being too small. Instead we have Quebec Agreement#Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire but the Quebec Agreement is already linked. Let me know if you think the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire should also be linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Britain's top scientists participated in the British" see comment about this in the lead.
- "The United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 " United States doesn't appear to be part of the formal title of the act.
- "extraordinary scientific and technological achievement" in what sense and according to whom?
- "lithium-6 deuteride" no link?
- "thermonuclear design in which the thermonuclear fuel was separate and the majority of the yield came from thermonuclear burning" do we need three thermonuclear in one sentence?
- Fission isn't linked here.
More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Location
- "boossting" typo.
- "the yield of the" yield has already been mentioned in this para but not linked.
- "Menzies cabled his" what does that mean (particularly to people below the age of 40)?
- " No 240" -> "No. 240"
- Full stop is not used when it ends with the correct letter. British usage favours omitting the full stop in abbreviations which include the first and last letters of a single word (WP:SNODGRASS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since when has "number" ended with an o? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's Latin: "numero". See numero sign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- And see your own ref 45... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since when has "number" ended with an o? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Full stop is not used when it ends with the correct letter. British usage favours omitting the full stop in abbreviations which include the first and last letters of a single word (WP:SNODGRASS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found MOS:NUMERO, so changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Christmas Island" - you called it Kiritimati in the lead.
- " A USAF special " it's not until much later in the article that you expand this and link it.
- "based here" there.
Preparations
- "bomber squadrons" you've used bomber before this without linking.
- "nos." needs full stop for abbreviation.
- Similarly No 49 should be No. 49.
- Fix all those throughout, won't mention it again.
- "four Whirlwind helicopters, along with two RAF Whirlwinds " were the first four not RAF ones?
- "Damage caused by a storm" to what?
- "Narvik would reprise the" Narvik reprised the"
- "Fort Beauharnois" what sort of ship was that? RFA is just a fleet of ships.
- "with special radio equipment" what made it "special"?
- "there because of the steep grade of the ocean floor there" there there
- "to Chatham Dockyard, where" overlinked.
- "a DUKW.[59]" needs explanation.
- "facilities would be improved" were
- "1 December 1956" non-breaking spaces for dates, this one breaks between 1 and December for me.
- "48, 59 and 61 Field Squadrons, and 63 Field Park Squadron, and 12 and 73" none of these have articles/links/are notable enough?
- None have articles, and units of this size are not presumed notable, although plenty of them do. See Category:Squadrons of the Royal Engineers
- Isn't 25 Engineer Regiment the same as 25 (Close Support) Engineer Group?
- No. The 25th Engineer Regiment was disbanded in 2012. Oddly, it has an article on Wikia [13]
- " to Fanning island in" even though that redirects, shouldn't it still be Fanning Island?
- "Royal Engineers construct the airfield runway" that's a complete sentence so full stop.
- "a United States Air Force (USAF) base in the " see above about usage/linking/explanation first time round.
- "also operated DUKWs, amphibious" overlinked and explained too late...
- "tinkering" feels colloquial.
- Any decent link for "frozen" in the context of product design lifecycle?
- The closest I can find is Freeze (software engineering). It describes the process in question very well, but looks odd in the context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Grapple series
- "of three shots. " shots sounds odd when we're talking about dropping bombs.
- "This meant that they had to be dropped" why? to avoid destroying the aircraft?
- That could not happen with a timer. Added "in order to detonate at the correct altitude"
- "minor modification to its Dick" no action, but great sentence.
- "Despite its failure, the test was..." is this with reference to the first test, it's somewhat got lost. And note comment above, this wasn't a failure, it just failed to meet the expected yield, the rest of the test went successfully.
- "John Bayliss" who?
- "by Roberts. XD823, piloted" could merge, these are both very short.
- "This made it technically a megaton-range weapon" is there an explanation for this?
- "flabbergasted" emotive, POV.
Grapple X
- "This required another major construction effort..." this sentence repeats Christmas Island and construct...
- Still lots of No without a full stop. I don't know why they're being piped out, No. 49 Squadron RAF for example.
- "14 layers in Short Granite, it would have just three" MOSNUM, fourteen/three or 14/3.
- "A third Round, Round C, was produced, which was a diagnostic round." -> "A third, diagnostic round, Round C, was also produced"?
Grapple Y
- "One was to tinker with" tinker is too colloquial.
- "Taylor instability" this is the second time poor old "Rayleigh–Taylor instability," Rayleigh got dropped...
- "was the one adopted" no need for "the one"
- 2 = 8.4, 3 = 13? Again, some inconsistent roundings.
Grapple Z series
- "using tritium gas" link?
- "the RI effect. " no article?
- "a primary immune" primary what?
- "approved two shots" again, sounds weird, these aren't "shot", they're dropped.
- "lithium hydride" link.
- "using blind radar technique" what is that?
Aftermath
- "This came as a tremendous shock" what, the British test or Sputnik? It's unclear.
- "the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy" perhaps clarify this was an American committee.
- "as a British weapon" do we need British again?
- "5.4 tonnes" convert as you have with all other such values.
- "7.5 tonnes" ditto.
- "two British veterans of.." veteran is used three times in one sentence here.
- "for £100,000 damages" convert to US$ as you have with the Fiji $ later.
- "the UK Ministry of Defence by" drop UK.
Summary
- What are blanks in the "device" column?
- I may be being dense but what is the 3m+ in every single elevation + height box? Wouldn't it be neater to just have a note to say all were dropped over an elevation of 3m and stick to the height of the drop here?
- The names like Z3 and Z4 are mentioned in this table for the first time, they're nowhere to be seen in the prose.
- "the Short Granite device" why italics?
Refs
- Canberra Times is linked multiple times but not Independent, Guardian etc, what's the strategy?
- Ref 103 missing publication date.
- Ref 149 missing publication date.
- Ref 158 what makes this a high quality reliable source?
- Ref 175, why is ABC in italics?
External links
- Are ten external links necessary? I get some link out to photos but surely if the others have relevant material, they should be incorporated directly into the article with inline refs?
That's it, a really interesting read, nice work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TRM, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Trisomy X
Trisomy X is one of the more common genetic syndromes you probably haven't heard of. Affecting one in a thousand women, the highest estimates for how many know they have it are around 10%, and it goes down a lot from there. It helps that the presentation is so variable -- how often do people get their chromosomes tested when they have no symptoms at all? And yet, sometimes those 'no symptoms at all' are the result of an entire extra chromosome. Fantastic how the human body works.
This is the main article of a series I've been working on extensively over the past few months. It's the first article I've taken to FAC; a previous article in the same series has gone through pre-FAC PR, which I've leaned on heavily while writing this to keep the article tight, accessible, and educational. I'm as happy with it as I can ever be with my own writing (you know how it is) and only a little crippled by self-doubt. I hope you find this an enjoyable and educational read on a sparsely-written topic, which I've gained the confidence to say is perhaps now the most comprehensive piece on the subject available to a general audience. Vaticidalprophet 02:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Support by User:Neopeius
What an excellent article this is! I shall be doing a text review, enjoying all the while. My first suggestion is, in the lead:
*"Beginning in the 1960s, cohort studies following people with sex chromosome aneuploidies from birth to adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected, fitting in with the general population, and that many cases never come to diagnostic attention."
- How about "...and that many cases never came to diagnostic attention." to keep the tenses consistent and also to avoid simply duplicating the last sentence of the first paragraph (i.e. this sentence is about the historical context, not specifically just about the disorder.)
- You blue link aneuploidy, but it's such a fundamental part of the article, I'd define it both in the summary and when it first appears. It was only when I got to the end of the article that I saw the definition was notated -- I'd put it in the text proper (ditto karyotype). Indeed, the problem with notes is they're essentially invisible -- they definitely shouldn't be used for fundamental definitions but rather (if at all -- I kind of hate notes in WP articles) for anecdotal asides not critical to the piece.
- This, I think, might be more in the realm of personal disagreement. One consideration I've used while writing that's similar to the mobile one (i.e. "most readers know this but most writers don't") is that logged-out editors have a gadget similar to navigation popups turned on by default -- assuming the leads for the given articles aren't terrible (that might be worth checking...) they can see the definitions of bluelinked terms simply by hovering without having to follow to the next article. I've used annotations because the definitions worth giving are somewhat long, and I worry it would distract from the text to give them in full. I recognize the concerns about notes bleeding into the references; I use {{NoteTag}} for them to try minimize this, as it stands out a lot more than a more subtle marker does. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Presentation
- Your first paragraph sort of throws people into the deep end and is highly jargon-heavy. I recognize that difficult terms are blue-linked, but as someone who writes abstruse articles (spaceflight, primarily) it's good to simplify. Down syndrome is an example of a more approachable article.
Neurodevelopmental
*"Though intellectual disability is rare, it is more prevalent than in the general population, occurring in about 5–10% of females with trisomy X[3] compared to approximately 1% of the broader population.[26] Although the average is depressed, some women with trisomy X are highly intelligent,[27] and some patients in the medical literature have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields.[25]"
- "Epilepsy in sex chromosome aneuploidies generally is mild,"
- "Autism spectrum disorders are more common in trisomy X, occurring in approximately 15% of patients[28] compared to less than 1% of girls in the general population.[32] Adult women with trisomy X appear to have higher rates of autistic symptomatology than control women.[33] "
- This confuses me. Are these two sentences redundant? (it was my understanding autism lasts a lifetime; it doesn't disappear with adulthood).
- It is indeed a lifetime experience, but our research, unfortunately, focuses overwhelmingly on autistic children. I wanted to express that we know about autistic adults here too, rather than the all-too-common mistake of assuming autistic children and autistic adults are "basically the same", and I've reworded to hopefully clarify. Vaticidalprophet 04:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Executive dysfunction is more prevalent amongst those with trisomy X than the general population.[25][28]"
I went to Executive dysfunction and that didn't help me understand the sentence, either. :) Explanation, if you could.
Psychological
* "The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups.[20]"
- "Dysthymia and cyclothymia are more common than in the general population.[3][6]" I'd perhaps use more general terms and/or say "Mood disorders such as persistent depressive disorder and cyclothymia (similar to bipolar disorder but with lesser extremes)..."
- "Compared to control women, women with trisomy X average higher schizotypy, reporting higher levels of introversion, magical thinking, and impulsivity.[25] Approximately one-fifth of women with trisomy X report clinically significant levels of anxiety.[28] Women with trisomy X are often "late bloomers", experiencing high rates of psychological distress into early adulthood, but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships.[25]"
- I cite these sentences as good models. The first introduces a hard word but follows it up with context that makes it accessible. The latter sentence is utterly free of advanced jargon. :)
- "schizophrenic women are more likely"
- "The study of mental health in trisomy X is impacted by an apparent gap in severity between prenatal and postnatal diagnosis. "
How about "The severity of mental health issues associated with trisomy X appears to correlate with whether or not the condition is diagnosed before or after birth."
Mosaic Forms
* "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, has an attenuated presentation compared to full trisomy X"
- I know what you mean by attenuated, but since it's just a fancy word and not specifically a medical term, perhaps this sentence construction is overly abstruse. :) "The simplest form of mosaic trisomy X, with a 46,XX/47,XXX karyotype, generally presents lesser symptoms than full trisomy X" for instance.
- "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X; some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX.[3][41][42]"
- How about "Although the general profile is milder than that of a non-mosaic 47,XXX karyotype, 46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is associated with a higher risk of chromosome anomalies in offspring than full trisomy X. The increased risk of abnormal offspring in mosaicism has been hypothesized to be a consequence of oocyte abnormality in 46,XX/47,XXX women not seen in full 47,XXX. Thus, some writers have recommended screening during pregnancy.[3][41][42]"
I mean, I like semi-colons, but sometimes they just make a sentence too long/awkward.
- "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and primary amenorrhea, "
- Non-mosaic Turner doesn't cause people to fail to fail to develop secondary sexual characteristics. :) How about "Non-mosaic Turner syndrome is characterized by failure to begin or complete puberty and development of secondary sexual characteristics."
- It does work, but I just wonder if the word may be too sophisticated.
* "Turner's women with 47,XXX cell lines are more likely to be fertile than the condition as a whole"
Not sure what this sentence clause means.
Causes
- I wonder if this paragraph might be better suited before Presentation, analogous to the Background section in my spaceflight articles or Early life for biographies.
This is my first medical article, so I wasn't sure.
Diagnosis and differential diagnosis
- "As postnatal karyotyping generally occurs in the setting of clinical concern, postnatally diagnosed trisomy X tends to have a more severe phenotype than prenatal.[5][20]"
- "in the setting of clinical concern" could probably be less abstruse. Also, this is somewhat duplicative of the passage at the end of Psychological (in which you imply the reason there's a difference in severity but never outright say it, as you do here.)
- It's a bit duplicative, but there's a method to the madness. Most (~60%, I think?) of readers are on mobile, where they only see the section they've expanded to read and all the rest are collapsed by default. I'm more comfortable repeating content between sections than potentially losing context because the reader can only see the one. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- In that event, you'll want to repeat the implications of the difference in timing of diagnosis as well as the bare fact that it exists. :)
- It's a bit duplicative, but there's a method to the madness. Most (~60%, I think?) of readers are on mobile, where they only see the section they've expanded to read and all the rest are collapsed by default. I'm more comfortable repeating content between sections than potentially losing context because the reader can only see the one. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
* You define karyotype testing. You might as well define differential testing, too.
History
- "The children with trisomy X and Klinefelter's had their karyotypes disclosed to their parents, but due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality, the diagnosis in that case was hidden from the family.[75]"
- In which case? You mean all the cases in that study? Or one particular case?
* " That same year, Nicole Tartaglia founded the eXtraordinarY Kids Clinic in Denver to study children with sex chromosome aneuploidies; around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X as of 2015.[15] In 2020, "
I'll be adding more as I read. --Neopeius (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you muchly! (Procedural note: I've shrunk the section header on this so it renders properly on WP:FAC.) I've adjusted the tense in the lead's last paragraph; the statement is still true, but you're right that it's a more historically-focused paragraph and so shouldn't necessarily jump around in tense. Will experiment a bit with the introduction in Presentation. Vaticidalprophet 03:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Alright -- I have finished my text review! Really lovely piece. Just needs a bit of elaboration to make it more accessible to the lay person (I mean, I'm kind of a lay person with regard to biology, but my vocabulary is pretty unusual.) --Neopeius (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Responded to all the comments (the ones without written responses were fixed while you were typing). Vaticidalprophet 05:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Can you do me a favor and respond to those anyway just so I have an easily viewed record? I've struck out all the resolved issues. Thank you for being a most pleasant reviewee! --Neopeius (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Replies made. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Just two unresolved issues. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have clarified 'clinical concern' with "such as obvious symptoms", which hopefully gets across the ideas more smoothly. The other sentence I think is as clear as it's going to be for now; the term is bluelinked to permit navigational popups, and it's not very jargony all told. Thank you for your comments and assistance! Vaticidalprophet 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) I still feel the article is a touch too abstrusely written for the average consumer, particularly as the topic is not that esoteric, but I also recognize your style is your style. You have my support. If others bounce off the style, you may want to smooth some corners. --Neopeius (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have clarified 'clinical concern' with "such as obvious symptoms", which hopefully gets across the ideas more smoothly. The other sentence I think is as clear as it's going to be for now; the term is bluelinked to permit navigational popups, and it's not very jargony all told. Thank you for your comments and assistance! Vaticidalprophet 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Just two unresolved issues. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Replies made. Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Can you do me a favor and respond to those anyway just so I have an easily viewed record? I've struck out all the resolved issues. Thank you for being a most pleasant reviewee! --Neopeius (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Responded to all the comments (the ones without written responses were fixed while you were typing). Vaticidalprophet 05:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: Alright -- I have finished my text review! Really lovely piece. Just needs a bit of elaboration to make it more accessible to the lay person (I mean, I'm kind of a lay person with regard to biology, but my vocabulary is pretty unusual.) --Neopeius (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- Can we get a source for the info in File:XXX syndrome (male).svg?
- Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- The nondisjunction images were made in 2011 by an editor who hasn't edited Commons or enwiki since 2014 (has some more recent nlwiki edits, but sparse enough I'm not confident a talk page message or email would find anyone). I've added a couple references to the caption describing the process in a way that fits with the image's depiction -- does that work? Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
HF
Don't see many medical articles at FAC, will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Speech therapy is indicated for between 40% and 90% of girls with trisomy X.[25] Expressive language skills tend to be more affected than receptive skills" - Can a comparison to average rates of speech therapy in a control population be indicated?
- " the resulting karyotype is generally mosaic, with both 47,XXX and other cell lines" - Don't think it's necessary to link mosaic here, as this section is immediately preceded by a lengthy discussion of mosaicism
- epicanthic folds is linked twice in the diagnosis section; IMO its generally not useful to link a term multiple times in the same section
- Both above unlinked. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, actually -- I mixed up which you were referring to in the first. The use in "Causes" is not (yet) unliked, on account of the 'separate section' issue; a mobile reader only opening "Causes" doesn't know we've just been through a discussion of mosaicism, and so risks having the term lost on them. I self-confess to overlinking even within my framework of "we should link jargon generously so readers looking at isolated sections can follow", so there may be an argument for omitting it, but there's a real risk many readers will be introduced to that section without being aware of what's before it. I did unlink the use at the beginning of "Mosaic forms", though, because any reader looking at that is about to get into a big discussion of them better than that article/its navigation popup would give. Vaticidalprophet 01:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both above unlinked. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- " Marfan syndrome may be considered due to the disproportion between limb and torso length observed in both syndromes, as well as the joint issues." - Is the joint issues the hyperflexibility mentioned earlier? Or is this issues for Marfan syndrome? The use of "the" here makes it seem that a specific set of joint issues is being referred to, and I'm having
- "Data from the Danish Cytogenetic Central Register, which covers 13% of women with trisomy X in Denmark,[67] suggests a life expectancy of 71 for women with full trisomy X and 78 for mosaics" - Is there some sort of control number to compare this to? It's hard to determine the meaning of statistical samples without knowing what the control results are.
- Added control numbers. I omitted them the first time around because they're presented in a somewhat odd way; there seem to have been two separate "control groups", one who died almost three years younger than the other on average, and I wasn't confident presenting the "all controls" data would give an accurate representation. Have added that now, though. Vaticidalprophet 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are block quotes like that normal for medical articles? It seems kinda anecdotal to me
- "Odle, Christine. "The story of Christine, born in 1967, dx shortly after birth". Triple-X Syndroom. Retrieved 23 May 2021." - What makes this source RS? Also, what part of the preceding is it intended to support? Because it seems to be referring to the Denver one and says that the program was cancelled shortly before the researcher died and implies funding was what ended it while the article suggests that it was the death
- As regards both these points: they were both intended to tie more smoothly in with something I was absolutely certain I'd added to the society and culture section (sex chromsosome aneuploidies and abortion) and promptly found out I had not, which is now in there. The source you pick at is used for "what women with trisomy X think about the condition" purposes (which I think might be able to be expanded a little more -- will double-check some of the sociological studies), which as the section indeed mentions is more often in single-case informal descriptions than in widespread study, because there just isn't much written on the karyotype from a non-medical perspective. (It's also, to note a specific note, not self-published but rather vetted by a major trisomy X organization.) I've since cut the use of it for this statement, which I thought at first was interesting detail but on review is more extraneous detail. The blockquote I like -- it's a solid summary of "where the research is" presented in a way more understandable/relatable to general readers than the admittedly dense remainder of that section -- but I'm agnostic on precisely where it goes; there's a good argument for putting it in "Society and culture", where the abortion discussions it ties into are, and where the fact it's written from a sociological rather than medical perspective doesn't pose an issue. Vaticidalprophet 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- " though the latter in particular is now discouraged" - is it worth saying why without becoming undue detail?
- The source is a bit sparse on this, just recommending it without reason. In context it's rather clear that the reason is "because searching 'triple x women' on the internet isn't exactly going to put results on trisomy X front and centre", but taking this from the source is technically OR. (On an amusing note on that, I hear so many stories of high school biology teachers accidentally searching 'xxx women' in front of a class of teenagers...) Vaticidalprophet 04:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not familiar enough with WP:MEDRS to really judge most of the sources
I think that's it from me. Expect to support, but it'll probably be over fewer FACR components than normal because I just am too unfamiliar with the subject matter to assess MEDRS or comprehensiveness, for instance. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Getting to them all one by one. Vaticidalprophet 01:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review
I'm pleased to see another medicine article, and will happily do a source review.
Some of the reviews cited here are a bit older than we'd see at the typical medicine FA, but I'm guessing that's due to a paucity of existing sources. I'll take a look later this week, but if there's nothing more recent written in textbooks or journals I think we can safely assume those slightly older reviews still reliably represent medical knowledge.
Currently checking uses of primary sources...
- It seems a bit odd to cite "Several factors can affect... with other chromosomes are present" to a retrospective study of 36 people in a niche journal (at least I think it's niche? I've never heard of it before but can't find much info on it...). Seems the same info could be cited to one of your more obviously reliable sources.
- ref 10 is nicely contextualized.
- ref 12 (increased enamel thickness and root length) is presumably not covered in other sources, and is contextualized as "... have all been connected to the condition", which seems fine to me.
... stepping away from the computer, but will be working on this in jumps and starts over the next few days. Feel free to respond to any issues as I go, or to wait. As you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ajpolino! :) You're pretty right on the source limitations here (I remember you being pretty shocked by the ones at the tetrasomy X PR, heh); the Unique guide updated this year still uses Tartaglia 2010 and Otter 2009, as well as a few much older than those, as its major sources, and I'm broadly not expecting anything big and new to be published on non-Klinefelter sex chromosome aneuploidies until the eXtraordinarY Babies studies get into swing, which is a decades-off matter. Will take another look at my use of ref 4; it's mostly an attempt to contextualize early in the article something that gets discussed in fuller depth later (including with better studies) without following it with a million citations. Vaticidalprophet 04:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ping to Ajpolino a week later just to check how this is going. Vaticidalprophet 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Finally got back to it today. All the other primary sources are explicitly called out as such in the text. The rest is to secondary sources. I won't pretend to know the field well enough to know each of the journals, but the ones cited here are from publishers with a reputation for running legitimate peer review operations. On the edge of that label are ref 58 from Bentham and ref 92 from MDPI. Each of those publishers has attracted some criticism for at-times uninspiring peer review. In general, I think their papers are fine to use with some added scrutiny. I'll leave you to look into it (and perhaps you already have) and decide if you trust each for the material you've sourced to them. I'll move on to verification spot-checks, which I believe is customary for first-time nominators (though now that I mention it I can't find that written anywhere...) Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I recall the custom being written too -- at any rate, thank you! Regarding the more borderline cases, I've had my eye on the Bentham source for a while and have been seriously considering switching it out, which I'll probably do. MDPI is...one I'd probably drop in a more mainstream context, but animal cytogenetics is not a sexy field and it's really a miracle we have a literature review from 2021 on the matter. If it were supporting a different part of the article I'd be looking for a better publisher, but "flawed-but-not-actively-predatory publisher for a very niche matter" is one where I think the rest of it works out to acceptable. The authors are also published on similar topics in better journals, which helps. Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Finally got back to it today. All the other primary sources are explicitly called out as such in the text. The rest is to secondary sources. I won't pretend to know the field well enough to know each of the journals, but the ones cited here are from publishers with a reputation for running legitimate peer review operations. On the edge of that label are ref 58 from Bentham and ref 92 from MDPI. Each of those publishers has attracted some criticism for at-times uninspiring peer review. In general, I think their papers are fine to use with some added scrutiny. I'll leave you to look into it (and perhaps you already have) and decide if you trust each for the material you've sourced to them. I'll move on to verification spot-checks, which I believe is customary for first-time nominators (though now that I mention it I can't find that written anywhere...) Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ping to Ajpolino a week later just to check how this is going. Vaticidalprophet 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Spotchecks (numbers picked by RANDOM.org):
- 3 (Tartaglia, et al. 2010) - The major source used in the article. [a-m, o, s, t, v, x-ab] all check out perfectly. Minor comments for the others:
- [n] - This sentence
A minority of patients... intellectually disabled patients
has fairly confusing citations. The way it's written it appears as if this ref is for the end of the sentence, but I don't see either of the facts in that half of the sentence -- trisomy X patients mostly have partial seizures (if they have seizures) and that epilepsy/EEG abnormalities are more common in those with intellectual disability -- in the ref. Perhaps in Roubertie, et al. (currently ref 32) next to it? But I don't have access to that journal.- The focus on intellectual disability is in ref 32, yes (I leaned towards ending the sentence with both because I don't like cutting up with refs too much, and both focus on the partial-seizures part); if you can't access the full text, it's mentioned in the abstract (
Although a specific electro-clinical pattern could not be defined, the epileptic phenotypes of these patients share many features; we suggest that the association 47,XXX/epilepsy/mental retardation may not be coincidental
). Partial seizures do come up in ref 3 (Medical history should include questions regarding staring spells or atypical movements, since seizure disorders and electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities can be present in females with trisomy X and may present as partial or absence seizures. In these cases, EEG studies should be performed to rule out possible seizure activity
). Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)- Not to split hairs, but I think either the text or the referencing (or my brain) is still unclear: "... and may present as partial or absence seizures." (source) vs "epilepsy or EEG abnormalities, particularly partial seizures..." (our article) are not getting across the same thing. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is one that does trip me up a bit. Source #3 discusses absence seizures, but I have no clue where it's getting that from, because more or less everything else (including the primary sources in it) overwhelmingly focus on partial seizures, and the other sources supplementing that one inline only discuss partial seizures. I think the balance of the evidence works out to focusing on partial seizures gives readers a more accurate impression of the literature. Vaticidalprophet 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not to split hairs, but I think either the text or the referencing (or my brain) is still unclear: "... and may present as partial or absence seizures." (source) vs "epilepsy or EEG abnormalities, particularly partial seizures..." (our article) are not getting across the same thing. Ajpolino (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- The focus on intellectual disability is in ref 32, yes (I leaned towards ending the sentence with both because I don't like cutting up with refs too much, and both focus on the partial-seizures part); if you can't access the full text, it's mentioned in the abstract (
- [p] (first par. of mosaic forms section)- not a big deal, but our current text implies that 45,X/46,XX/47,XXX mosaicism is less common than the other mosaics. Best I can tell, the source doesn't make that distinction. Does some other source explicitly distinguish them as less common? I get that the triple mosaic genotype is probably less common than the doubles, but if none of the reviews explicitly comment on it, perhaps we're better rephrasing to avoid the implication?
- If not less common, than at least less core, if that makes sense. It's a hard thing to dredge up explicitly-less-common sources for, as searches are pretty thrown off by complex mosaicism in autosomes and double-trisomies (e.g. 48,XXX+21 karyotypes). I've found a couple things explicitly calling it less common, but they're primary and often preprints. The wording here is a bit evasive/general, so there might be a direction it can be tweaked in to get the idea across even if those sources wind up unusable? Vaticidalprophet 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- [q] (The 46,XX/47,XXX subsection) - would you mind being more precise with the reference placement in this paragraph? It's a bit of a verification challenge. All this source says on the topic is that 46,XX/47,XXX happens, and that outcomes are better than 47,XXX.
- [r] ("Between 3% and 15%... have a 47,XXX cell line") - Just a note this source says 5-15%, the other source's (Lim, et al. 2017) discussion says 3-4% so I'm assuming this is your compromise? Disagreeing numbers is a perennial trick for writing medicine articles, so I feel your pain. Just flagging this in case it's a typo and you meant to go with the 5-15% range. It's odd the sources have such a broad disagreement, but what're you gonna do.
- It's a compromise, yeah. I might tweak it lower -- more sources lean towards the lower numbers than the higher ones -- but I'm not totally confident on that yet (only just beginning a rewrite of Turner syndrome) and so it's pending further reading in Turner-focused sources, because they disagree with each other here too. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- [u] ("Nondisjunction is related to... average maternal age was 33.") - I don't see the part about the cohort of women born in the '60s.
- [w] ("As trisomy X generally has... routinely performed for advanced maternal age.") - I don't see the bit about routine testing with advanced maternal age. But perhaps I just missed it? Hard to guess what section it would be in.
- The routine testing here is that amniocentesis/CVS are routinely performed for pregnant women in that age range, and trisomy X is picked up on those tests; the tests are brought up a few times (e.g.
Diagnosis during the prenatal period by amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling is common
). Should "these are tests used in advanced maternal age" be cited somewhere else? It's a bit sky-is-blue within the field, so it isn't explicitly mentioned in literature at this level, but it'll probably be in patient-targeted stuff I can find relatively easy -- those things just won't tend to mention trisomy X specifically. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- The routine testing here is that amniocentesis/CVS are routinely performed for pregnant women in that age range, and trisomy X is picked up on those tests; the tests are brought up a few times (e.g.
- [n] - This sentence
- 4 (Butnariu, et al. 2013) - What a coincidence! This is one I flagged earlier. My opinion is that this should be replaced by a more reliable source. The claim it sources is basically that mosaicism can affect the trisomy X phenotype. Should be able to find that elsewhere.
- Phew! I've got 15 more numbers from the generator, but I'm going to sign off for the day. Will get back to this asap. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- 5 (Otter, et al. 2009) - [a-f, h, i, k, m-q] all check out. Notes on the others:
- [g] "A minority[ref] of patients have epilepsy or EEG abnormalities..." - I'm confused as to what this is referencing. The source says "EEG abnormalities seem to be rather common" and doesn't give a sense of epilepsy prevalence. Could you clarify?
- [j] "behavioral issues in children with trisomy X... emotional maturity encouraging hard-to-reach expectations." - Could you clarify the source text this is based on?
It seemed that the physical phenotype (being the tallest but immature and somewhat clumsy girl in the peer group, sometimes with precocious puberty) and the behavioural phenotype (speech and language disorders, sensory-integration disorders and academic difficulties) could explain some social problems.
Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- [l] could you quote the source text for "Adult employment is generally in lower-skill pink-collar occupations"? It also cites Bender, et al. 2002 but I don't seem to have access to that. The only thing I see in this source is "The 47,XXX women most often find jobs that reflect their performance abilities." but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
- Time for another big reference! Will try to get these other ones done asap. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- 21 Stagi, et al. 2016 - Checks out. Any reason to mention LH but not FSH? I only skimmed the source, but it seemed to imply both were elevated. Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- 23 Cordts, et al. 2011 - [a&b] both look good.
- 28 Black, et al. 2015 - I'm not sure where the 3% floor came from (maybe the other source?) but I trust your judgment here. This is always a hard kind of thing to cite.
- 30 Grosso, et al. 2004 - Good.
- 33 Maenner, et al. 2020 - Good.
- 41 Neri and Opitz 1984 - I assume this is just to cite "Some writers have recommended... during pregancy"? If so, checks out.
- 53 Graves, et al. 2009 - Good.
- 55 O'Connor 2008 - Sure.
- 57 Meazza, et al. 2017 - [a&b] good
- 59 Otteson, et al. 2010 - I'm not really sure what this is verifying. It seems like the two preceding sentences "Pentasomy X, with... and short stature." are backed up by the rarediseases.org source. Otteson et al only addresses the relationship between height and chrom. X copies.
- 65 Berglund, et al. 2019 - [a, b] Good.
- 77 Tartaglia, et al. 2020 - Good.
- 91 O'Connor, et al. 2011 - basically good, but pardon the quibble: maybe "trisomy X is strongly linked to infertility" is worded just a bit strong? The source says "In dogs, the few reports of trisomy X in the current literature had... either primary anestrus or infertility...".
- 94 Prakash, et al. 1994 - I can't seem to access this one. The title just about says it all, so I'll trust your judgment on this one.
Alright, all done. Thanks for your quick responses, and apologies for my extreme slowness. I've got a couple of outstanding quibbles that you're welcome to consider. Regardless, I think this is a source review pass, and I'll happily support on the basis of that. If you need another prose reviewer or anything else here feel free to ping me. Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Prose review
Just signalling that I see this is falling down the list a bit, so I'll give a review either tomorrow (Tuesday 13) or this weekend. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- ImaginesTigers ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Gog. I'm sorry – I just don't have the time anymore. There are no striking issues to me, glancing over the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, ImaginesTigers; just so long as we know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Gog. I'm sorry – I just don't have the time anymore. There are no striking issues to me, glancing over the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- karyotype[note 1] 47,XXX, - could we move the note until after the punctuation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is it a disorder, or an abnormality, as that's where we have the article chromosome abnormality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The article being at "abnormality" is pretty much coincidence -- there are many possible terms for "chromosomes doing something weird", none of which have a real claim to COMMONNAME. "Abnormality"'s connotations means it's losing some favour, and accordingly I'm not inclined to use it in the article. Vaticidalprophet 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- girls and women - surely women covers this. Happens a few times Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- dysmorphic features change to [[dysmorphic feature]]sBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in). - I don't really get what we earn from stating the actual height, considering the lede doesn't say how tall women generally are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- chromosome aneuploidy.[note 2] - considering we have a link, do we need the note? And if we do, can't we put this into the text? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Whenever I omit the footnotes, I get complaints about the language density. This is the best compromise I've pulled off -- expecting people to follow links to understand an article gets criticised, while putting it directly in the text is patronizing to people who do know. Vaticidalprophet 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- First diagnosed in 1959, - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Prose
- An introductionary sentence to the body would benefit here - something saying that Trisomy X is a chromosone abnormality etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- prenatally (before birth) and postnatally (after birth) - if we have to explain the words, could we not just say "both before birth (prenatal) and after birth (postnatal)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- might be worth changing "pinky finger" to "little finger" as that's where we have our article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Autism spectrum disorders - cut the link to just the first two words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- childhood onset schizophrenia - is onset required? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- are the different subsections of mosiac forms needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- There's an awful lot of duplicate links that need removing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The prognosis of trisomy X is, broadly speaking, good, - maybe I'm not medical enough, but "good comparied to what?" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The good news here, is that despite not being medical, or having interest in disabilities, I got through this article and understood most of what was being said - so I'm pretty happy. If you could fix up a few of the wording/formatting issues I had above, I'd be happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- As regards the "should this be at the thing the article is titled at" comments in general: I think, per WP:NOTBROKEN, they shouldn't be. Everything I've used is a valid and frequent term for the relevant anatomy, disorder, etc. NOTBROKEN explicitly opposes changing redirects from valid alternative terms, because it obscures how often those terms are used onwiki and accordingly whether they would make for better article titles than the current one. (In at least one such case, I'd open the RM myself.) Vaticidalprophet 04:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, are you ready to declare on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am leaning support, but there is still a few things above that haven't been addressed, or commented on. Whilst I'm ok with linking to items that aren't the direct title of a page, there's quite a lot of occasions where this article links to redirects unnecessarily - whilst reasonably trivial, I would recommend fixing them before becoming a FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lee. Vaticidalprophet ? ||||
- Lee Vilenski, I've tweaked some of the redirects into non-redirects ("little finger" and "dysmorphic feature"). Vaticidalprophet 05:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lee. Vaticidalprophet ? ||||
- I am leaning support, but there is still a few things above that haven't been addressed, or commented on. Whilst I'm ok with linking to items that aren't the direct title of a page, there's quite a lot of occasions where this article links to redirects unnecessarily - whilst reasonably trivial, I would recommend fixing them before becoming a FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, are you ready to declare on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
I don't excel in biology, so forgive me if I misunderstand something. I'll probably make comments more on prose stuff than the scientific bit. GeraldWL 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
* "Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation"-- I'd remove "of trisomy X" here to avoid repetition. However, I see that this sentence has a better duplicate-- "As the symptoms of trisomy X are often not serious enough to inspire a karyotype test"-- so I don't think this sentence is needed.
|
- Gerald Waldo Luis, you and Lee Vilenski have both commented on this line, so I'm trying to figure out how to change it up. Is it possible that either of you could be a little more precise about the issues with it? I've modified the wording a bit to see if the new wording makes more sense (by directly flowing from "good" to "the things that make it good") -- is this an improvement? Vaticidalprophet 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Gerald Waldo Luis and Lee Vilenski, in case the pings were missed, as it's been a few days. Vaticidalprophet 04:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, sorry for the delay; I was grieving these past days and was only able to edit in the App, where somehow Wikipedia:-prefixed pages can't be edited. I don't seem to find any more problems with the article, and I'm happy to support. GeraldWL 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
I have some reservations. The article seems to be written for clinicians because there are expressions like "clinical portrait", "frank microcephaly", "one study..", "with the condition", "a lterature review found", and – the dreadful – "control women"! I am also concerned about the number of primary studies cited, which goes against WP:MEDRS. Are they all adding value? Lastly, the prose needs some polishing; for example, I saw "outside of" rather than just "outside". I am happy to revisit. Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Noting for posterity that I've seen this and will be working to address it. I've had relatively limited opportunities for editing over the past few days, so I'm unsure what schedule changes will be on, but they will be made. Vaticidalprophet 05:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Ajpolino
I did a source review, but GB's comment above piqued my interest in looking at the prose as well. I'm no prose wizard, but below are some suggestions for de-clinicalizing and improving the flow of text. Take them or leave them. Also I'd suggest a quick read (or re-read) of User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Eliminating_redundancy, which I continue to find helpful for me:
- Presentation
- "Trisomy X has a variable phenotype, ranging from
cases withno symptoms at all torelativelysignificant disability, and the clinical portrait is not entirely clear" - "Nonetheless, a number of... in the medical literature" - you don't need to state the obvious "in the medical literature", can you rephrase to something like "People with trisomy X have some consistent... traits?". The reader assumes you're deriving them from the medical literature.
- "Severity is known to vary..." > "Severity varies"
- "most of which are
quitesubtle" - "girls with trisome X are
ofaverage height" - "The height excess" > "The added height" (they don't really have an excess of height. They're just a bit taller)
- "
frankmicrocephaly" (as GB points out above) - "Severe internal disease is rare in trisomy X; although heart defects..." > "rare in trisomy X. Although heart defects..." - At first read I thought the "although" was to contrast with the previous sentence, rather than the subsequent clause. Momentarily confusing.
- I think there's a typo in "The study of mental health... by those diagnosed after." Maybe "by" > "than"?
- I'd cut "in one exceptional case... including a daughter with Turner syndrome." Exceptional cases make for odd articles.
- "Trisomy X has a variable phenotype, ranging from
- Causes
- "with around 90% of cases
beingtraced..." - "Mosaic trisomy X is associated with a higher rate of offspring with chromosomal disorders" - I'd cut this. You just told us the same a few paragraphs above.
- "with around 90% of cases
- Diagnosis
- "As trisomy X generally has a mild or asymptomatic phenotype,..." > "As trisomy X is generally mild or asymptomatic..."
- "It is estimated that" can be removed (though you'll need a bit of downstream rewording).
- "Indications for postnatal testing for trisomy X include..." > "Postnatal testing is typically promted by..." or something like that.
- "As postnatal karyotyping generally occurs... a more severe phenotype than prenatal" - I'd cut this sentence too. It's an important fact, but you've mentioned it several times by this point in the article.
- "Cases of trisomy X with more severe... a particular differential diagnosis of trisomy X" - I think you could cut these two sentences and instead open this paragraph with something like "Severe cases of trisomy X can appear similar to tetrasomy X".
- "karyotype alone explains, such as
in the setting ofsevere intellectual disability..." - "A literature review found that..." seems like it could be cut?
- Epidemiology
- "Trisomy X's severe underdiagnosis... severe than the general 47,XXX population." - I'd cut this sentence. Again, you've mentioned it a few times this point, and the paragraph is clear without it.
- History
- "served to dispel" > "dispelled" (and then you'll have to change "reveal" to "revealed" a few words downstream)
- It's not clear to me if/why the 2007 "study day" merits mention in the history section. Are study days a thing? Google suggests it's just a daylong meeting. Do we know if anything in particular came out of it? If so, perhaps you could briefly highlight that.
- "...Babies Study, a planned
newcohort study..." - "... though the latter
in particularis now discouraged."
- In other animals
- I'm not clear on the relevance of the brief discussion of the canine pseudoautosomal region. If it's not relevant to trisomy X, you can probably cut it. If it is, maybe you could tweak the wording to clarify?
- "... found to have trisomy X was found
, on investigation,to have..."
Made a first pass through. I think prose improvements are very achievable. If there's any other way I can help feel free to ping me. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- VP has indicated on his userpage that he'll mostly be stepping away from the encyclopedia. I've actioned my suggested changes above. Will look over Graham Beards' and Spicy's comments some time in the next couple of days and see if we can bring this the rest of the way to compliance with the FA criteria without VP. Of course, if he changes course and returns to regular editing, I'll leave it in his hands. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Spicy
I'm concerned about some of the sources used in the 'Society and culture' section. What makes [14] and [15] high-quality reliable sources? They seem to be self-published personal reflections and I don't think we can make claims such as "Women with trisomy X and their families have criticised these abortions" and "Women with trisomy X discussing their experiences express optimism about the karyotype and hope for other people with it" based on the personal opinions of two people. These sources [16][17] seem to have been published by Emory to promote their own sex chromosome disorders clinic - not seeing how these are high-quality RS? Spicy (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dr Bowser
I found the proper footnote for "...maternal age 33" and reintroduced the sentence. With the nominee absent I'm also going to take the liberty to update the section on bovine trisomy X using a 2021 review by Iannuzzi. Overall I belive things are looking good, especially if any pending issues are adressed. Dr Bowser (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Uturuncu
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is about a volcano in Bolivia which was glaciated in the past and is the highest summit in the region. It'd be unremarkable - except that satellite images show that since 1992 it has been inflating due to the ascent of magma at depth. Because it's in an area with numerous supervolcanoes, some folks think this inflation may be the prelude to a giant eruption although a regular eruption is certainly possible too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Images appear to be freely licensed. However, I would suggest that you label the infobox image with the angle at which it was taken (north face, from the southwest, etc.) rather than the date, unless the volcano changed drastically since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 09:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's done. AFAIK the apparel of the volcano has not drastically changed during the past 15 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments from Moisejp
Hi Jo-Jo. I've done one read-through so far and the article seems in pretty good shape. Now I'm working my way through the second read-through and I will add points as I notice them. By the way, I don't know much about volcanoes, so this is a layman's review.
- (Minor comment) Geography and geomorphology: "since then scientific interest has increased, including a reconnaissance mission carried out by scientists in 2003". Would something like "scientific interest and activity" possibly work better? For me "reconnaissance mission" doesn't quite seem to mesh with "scientific interest" ("interest included a reconnaissance mission" doesn't seem precise).
- Seems OK to me; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Structure: Halfway through the first paragraph the subject changes to be about lava flows. Would it be better to break off into a new paragraph, either as a new second paragraph or possibly join it with the existing second paragraph about lava flows? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regional: "and includes Uturuncu.[1] Aside from Uturuncu, it includes about 69 Holocene volcanoes in a high elevation region,[40] including the potentially active volcanoes..." Three instances of "include" in a short space. One idea is if you reword the second one that would also serve to break up the other two. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Replaced one mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Minor comment) Composition and magma genesis: "within a rhyolite groundmass[j],[68]". Should both [j] and [68] be after the comma? I'm not used to seeing them split up like this, but if you have logic for doing it this way, that's fine. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer to put the note right after the word it's about, while the source applies to the sentence so it goes after punctuation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Glaciation: "Modern Uturuncu features no glaciers;[4] however, perennial ice was reported in 1956,[37] remnants of snow in 1971,[79] the existence of sporadic snow fields in 1994,[3] and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered." The last part ("and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered") stands out because "was reported" is the stated or implied verb for the other three parts. If it was me I would make sure all four parts followed a parallel structure or else break the fourth part off to be truly separate (maybe with a semi-colon). Moisejp (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I honestly don't like that sentence much but it's all about the ice and snow cover, so I am not sure that splitting it makes sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I have finished my second read-through and am happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Comments from Volcanoguy
- Lead: "emplaced about 10,000 cubic kilometres (2,400 cu mi) in sometimes very large eruptions". What was emplaced? Tephra? Lava? Both?
- Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Structure: "separated by a saddle that is 5,700 metres (18,700 ft) high". Saddle should probably be linked to saddle (landform) for those who don't know what a saddle is.
- Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Structure: "85 cubic kilometres (20 cu mi)[14]–50 cubic kilometres (12 cu mi)" → 85–50 cubic kilometres (20–12 cu mi).
- Not sure if that works, as it's one source for each value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Local: "The Vilama (8.41 million years old) and Guacha (5.65 million years old) ignimbrites". Link ignimbrites here first since this is where the term is first used.
- There is now a link in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Geologic history and Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex: "including several so-called "supereruptions" with volcanic explosivity indexes of 8 at Cerro Guacha, La Pacana, Pastos Grandes and Vilama". Volcanic Explosivity Index is capitalized.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Composition and magma genesis: "the first two appear to be derived from country rocks". Link "country rocks" to Country rock (geology).
- Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
All this from my first pass. Support. Volcanoguy 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- FN2 has a location but no publisher; most other refs are the opposite. Ditto Schäbitz. Check throughout for consistency
- FNs 2 and 3 and 61 are entries in the same source; why are they so differently formatted?
- Corrected this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- FN10: link returns error - is there an available version?
- Yes, it's added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
- I think that I've applied them all to non-book, non-journal sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why for example does FN20 not have one? It is neither a book nor a journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's added now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why for example does FN20 not have one? It is neither a book nor a journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think that I've applied them all to non-book, non-journal sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some Springer refs specify which branch is being cited, but others don't - why?
- That's the vagaries of the citation tools. Standardized to use only Springer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why include page ranges for single-page refs?
- Hmm, not sure I understand what you are referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- For example, FN72 has "pp. 661–661" - why not just "p. 661"? There are several refs that do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like this was another citation tool vagary, resolved it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- For example, FN72 has "pp. 661–661" - why not just "p. 661"? There are several refs that do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure I understand what you are referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fn81 has a formatting error in the title
- Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- FN92 includes (Full text via ResearchGate.), but none of the links go to that site?
- One does now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- FN95 returns error
- Removed it and the content that relied on that source. I am oh so tired of website operators who cannot do proper link maintenance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fn145 doesn't match formatting of similar refs
- Removed that too, it wasn't adding anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- How are you ordering Sources?
- Alphabetic after the last name of the author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please double-check - Schäbitz is currently listed before Kern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please double-check - Schäbitz is currently listed before Kern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Alphabetic after the last name of the author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ahlfeld: is there an OCLC number for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not as far as I can tell. Note, by the way, that I've taken an opportunity to attach some additional sources that I couldn't process earlier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, what are your thoughts on this one now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems in reasonable shape. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Support from TRM
- "lies in the San Pablo de Lipez municipality" Lipez is missing a diacritic.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I know now how this works but it would be remiss of me not to mention the severely awkward positioning of a lot of the references.
- Aye, but as mentioned before the win of readability comes at the expense of verifiability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well as long as they're moved after the review, that's fine. The readers don't need this jarring and awkward reference placement, they are capable of waiting to the end of the sentence or nearby punctuation to find what's verifying each claim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Aye, but as mentioned before the win of readability comes at the expense of verifiability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "is almost uninhabited" people/animals/both?
- I think most people would interpret it as people, which is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "a tourism target" I don't think we need to link common terms link "tourism".
- Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Uturuncu,[13] a" why is that being referenced there?
- "a former sulfur mine is " comma after mine?
- Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Non-breaking space between 50 and million. Check all others.
- I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "among tephra deposits" what are those?
- Added explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "With 6,008 metres (19,711 ft) elevation" maybe horses for courses but I would say "At an elevation of..."
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "terrain[23][15] and" ref order.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Link levees.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The broad edifice..." which broad edifice?
- Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "and colluvium[d].[27]" grim pre/post-punctuation placement.
- Shifted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The Rio Grande de Lipez flows" Rio is missing a diacritic.
- Not sure that it is needed on Rio, but added it to Lipez. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "the South America Plate has" isn't that normally called the South American Plate?
- Yes, so fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don't we normally abbreviate million years old to myo in these kinds of articles?
- Maybe? Spelling out doesn't hurt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first time perhaps, but the subsequent dozen just bloat the prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Did this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first time perhaps, but the subsequent dozen just bloat the prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe? Spelling out doesn't hurt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- " (0.62–12.43 mi);[52][47]" order. Check others.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "groundmass[j],[75] " again, just horrible.
- "associated with Heinrich event 1" what was that?
- No need to link words like "moisture".
- Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Bølling–Allerød warming uses an en-dash.
- Corrected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "climate records" is linked but red. Is this useful?
- Once someone makes the page, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "0.00006 cubic kilometres per year (1.4×10−5 cu mi/a)[109]-0.00027 cubic kilometres per year (" en-dash needed here but can we not switch to cubic metres for such minuscule amounts (in cubic km terms).
- Thing is that in this kind of system kilometres are a more useful frame of reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree I'm afraid, no-one can imagine what a cubic km looks like, let alone 0.00006 cubic km, or worse 1.4x10-5 cu mi/a..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's done as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree I'm afraid, no-one can imagine what a cubic km looks like, let alone 0.00006 cubic km, or worse 1.4x10-5 cu mi/a..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thing is that in this kind of system kilometres are a more useful frame of reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "hydrothermal system is" no better target for this than a red link?
- Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "InSAR imaging" explain this before using the abbreviation.
- Spelled it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Altiplano-Puna" should use en-dash, this appears many times.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can you explain what ML is instead of just using it?
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That's all I have on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TRM, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey. Horrendous reference placement continues to be a problem. It's not something I expect to see in professional or academic papers, so I don't expect to see it here. There's no reason that references can't wait until the end of the sentence or next punctuation unless they're being used for direct quotes etc. It diminishes what is a very good article to be continually interrupted with clunky references placement. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've done the other things. On the ref format, I still think the price to pay in terms of verifiability is too high. Also, since we only have 3 comments so far, someone could still come with issues that require a source checking, and as I've seen at Laguna del Maule shuffling references around can drastically increase the amount of work needed to verify content. Moving mid-sentence references (i.e these not preceded by punctuation) might work as a compromise, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey. Horrendous reference placement continues to be a problem. It's not something I expect to see in professional or academic papers, so I don't expect to see it here. There's no reason that references can't wait until the end of the sentence or next punctuation unless they're being used for direct quotes etc. It diminishes what is a very good article to be continually interrupted with clunky references placement. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- TRM? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the price to pay of verifiability is too high at all. Claims made in a single sentence can be verified by citations at the end of the sentence or after the next appropriate punctuation. Right now, this doesn't feel professional at all, it looks and reads like a disruptive mess. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll be changing the format a bit, but I'd like to see a content review or two from anyone before that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with TRM regarding the reference placements. Having them placed inside sentences doesn't look very professional. It also makes the article more difficult to read. Volcanoguy 21:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- TRMI've done some reference format changes. Unrelated, but I am wondering if this is a source acceptable for a FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with TRM regarding the reference placements. Having them placed inside sentences doesn't look very professional. It also makes the article more difficult to read. Volcanoguy 21:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll be changing the format a bit, but I'd like to see a content review or two from anyone before that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the price to pay of verifiability is too high at all. Claims made in a single sentence can be verified by citations at the end of the sentence or after the next appropriate punctuation. Right now, this doesn't feel professional at all, it looks and reads like a disruptive mess. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- TRM? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TRM, how are we doing with this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I still find reading it a challenge, with still awkward positioning of footnotes, but I don't suppose that's a sufficient reason not to support as I know the nominator has gone some way to trying to deal with my concern, for which I am grateful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Sub-discussion about elevation data
As the pre-eminent FAC source reviewers, can I ask @Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth: for a second opinion on this source? It's apparently published by Maximo Kausch per here but I am not sure that this is enough to make it a "high-quality source". To wit, the question is about whether this edit can be kept or not, since it's the only source. Copyvio concerns were discussed here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of the things in that edit, we're talking about the Elevation section? Do we know what sources that site is using for its information? Any details on how posts are fact-checked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the elevation section. I'll ask MAXIMOKAUSCH about these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria. The elevation sources are cited in each elevation mentioned. Please note these are not written as they are Geo TIFF images (One has to open them using any suitable app, then search the for the highest point). Please note, for example, currently Wikipedia has hundreds of articles citing sources like PeakBagger. Note they use a single DEM to calculate the peak's prominence. I'm using 4 or 5.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think PeakBagger is considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria. The elevation sources are cited in each elevation mentioned. Please note these are not written as they are Geo TIFF images (One has to open them using any suitable app, then search the for the highest point). Please note, for example, currently Wikipedia has hundreds of articles citing sources like PeakBagger. Note they use a single DEM to calculate the peak's prominence. I'm using 4 or 5.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the elevation section. I'll ask MAXIMOKAUSCH about these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of the things in that edit, we're talking about the Elevation section? Do we know what sources that site is using for its information? Any details on how posts are fact-checked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I still think that whether http://www.andes-specialists.com/uturunco-uturuku-6015/ is a reliable source is more important. I think the issue is that prominence and the like are really mountaineering concepts, not something that governments would routinely record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi guys, is this resolved? If not pls ping the FAC coords when it is... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Edward Mitchell Bannister
- Nominator(s): —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is about Edward Mitchell Bannister, an African-American abolitionist and painter. He first received national recognition for his art in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, and he was a founder member of the Rhode Island School of Design and Providence Art Club. I have particularly attempted to expand our coverage of Bannister's earlier abolitionist years in Boston and the specifics of his artistic style and subjects.
In support of this nomination, I have solicited other editors' help with GOCE copyediting, a successful GAN, and a recent peer review. This is my first FAC nomination. (@Ceoil: since they offered to look at this earlier.) —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Winged. Wasn't expecting this, seemed to have missed the PR, but you have some formatting issues with closing brackets (ie [[]]) in refs 10, 11, 13 and 30 in i this revision. Also ref 39 is returning a syntax error. All easily sorted, and far from deal breakers. Will read though again shortly, with a full review in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are Done —Wingedserif (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I welcome them! —Wingedserif (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are Done —Wingedserif (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Edward Mitchell Bannister.jpg and File:'Hay Gatherers' by Edward Mitchell Bannister, c. 1893.jpg When was the first publication?
- For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) —Wingedserif (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you say
For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get
, what information is this based on? Is there any documented publication prior to 1926? For the second one, public display does not count as publication under US law. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- For the portrait, "between 1870 and 1901" is based on source captions that list 1870 as the earliest possible date for the photo and the fact that Bannister died in early 1901. Sorry, I did not realize that the publication in this case means the date of the creation of the photography/copy, not first exhibition. I haven't been able to find earlier copies than Holland's 1992 thesis. By my understanding, the photo of Hay Gatherers should be in the public domain, as we are now 100+ years past the death of Bannister and the photo fits the criteria of "faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art".
- Publication is not equivalent to creation either. To count as publication, copies of the work generally have to be distributed to the public, see the legal definition[18] PD-art only applies if you can show the underlying work is PD. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is a possibility, but you would have to show it wasn't published. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, the Hay Gatherers painting is in the public domain, as we are well past
life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death
, making the photograph of it eligible for PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)- Nope, that's not how it works! It needs to be PD-US which is more complicated than public domain in most countries. See the Hirtle chart for details. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you say "It needs to be PD-US", what "it" are you referring to? By that chart, the painting, produced c. 1893 and necessarily before the death of Bannister, meets the criteria for both PD-old-70 and PD-US-expired. Both of those apply whether or not the painting was ever "published" or not. Therefore, the painting is in the US public domain. The photograph of it is public domain as well, per PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, that's not how it works! It needs to be PD-US which is more complicated than public domain in most countries. See the Hirtle chart for details. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, the Hay Gatherers painting is in the public domain, as we are well past
- Publication is not equivalent to creation either. To count as publication, copies of the work generally have to be distributed to the public, see the legal definition[18] PD-art only applies if you can show the underlying work is PD. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is a possibility, but you would have to show it wasn't published. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- For the portrait, "between 1870 and 1901" is based on source captions that list 1870 as the earliest possible date for the photo and the fact that Bannister died in early 1901. Sorry, I did not realize that the publication in this case means the date of the creation of the photography/copy, not first exhibition. I haven't been able to find earlier copies than Holland's 1992 thesis. By my understanding, the photo of Hay Gatherers should be in the public domain, as we are now 100+ years past the death of Bannister and the photo fits the criteria of "faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art".
- When you say
- For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) —Wingedserif (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: I did not check licenses for images in the gallery. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to me that this is still the case, i.e. that gallery image licencing has not been checked -- any takers? @Nikkimaria, Casliber, and Buidhe:? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the license for one of the images of the gallery. All the gallery licenses are now uniform and should be fine. Curiocurio (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It appears to me that this is still the case, i.e. that gallery image licencing has not been checked -- any takers? @Nikkimaria, Casliber, and Buidhe:? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
Approaching the three week mark and very little interest. Unless more reviews are attracted over the next few days, preferably with some indication that a consensus to promote may be forming, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Support by Cas Liber
Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race; in 1860, Boston was one of the most segregated cities in the US - you could merge the two latter clauses into one really here, maybe " At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race—ranked as one of the most segregated cities in the US in 1860" (one less "Boston" anyway)- I trimmed this, by cutting the "sharply divided" bit, since that's also implied by "most segregated". —WS
Carteaux was admitted to her Home for Aged Colored Women in 1902 and died in 1903 in a mental institution. She and Bannister are buried together. - needs a citation(s)- Put in a citation from the Rhode Island History Journal source, which focuses on Carteaux. —WS
The first two sentences of the Artistic style are repetitive. A possible solution is to switch sentences and trim, to something like, "Bannister advertised himself as a portraitist as a young painter, but eventually became popular for his landscapes. He also painted biblical, mythological, and genre scenes." or somesuch (as the references allow)- Combined as you suggested. —WS
Can any of the Further reading items be used as sources? If they have more material to add then leaving them out makes me think the article is not comprehensive, and if they don't then why do we list them....- Two of those were recent news articles that I had dropped in. I added two sentences from then, and deleted a couple of sources that only treat Bannister briefly. The Bearden book looks to have been written in collaboration with Holland and had more detail, which I've written into the article. The remaining two "Further reading" items are books that I haven't been able to locate. —WS
Overall a good read and within striking distance of FA-hood I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I tentatively support this on prose and comprehensiveness grounds, but I tend to skim prose sometimes so other editors might pick up issues I have missed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Support by Curiocurio
Tonalism and lede
I did a read through of the article and thought it was well done. However, the infobox says his style was Tonalism, and maybe I missed it but I didn't see Tonalism mentioned in the article. Also, the lede seems a little skimpy for a FA candidate. Perhaps it could be expanded a bit. Curiocurio (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've replaced "Tonalism" with "American Barbizon school" in the article; good spot, I hadn't realized that sources actually don't mention the former. I had kept it from the version of the article I expanded, because Tonalism does seem apt for describing his later work, but until sources say that, it'd be WP:OR. I've also expanded the lead to mention his largest accomplishment (the 1876 first prize) and to mention Christiana, their house, and Bannister's legacy, which are discussed more later in the article and did seem to be missing from the lead. lmk what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- The lede is much better. However, the first sentence still does say "was an American Tonalist oil painter", and Tonalism isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could say "was an oil painter of the American Barbizon school", and later, "Bannister's style of landscape painting". Stylistically, Tonalism is more succinct than American Barbizon school but as you say it's necessary to follow the sources. Curiocurio (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ach, sorry, my eyes just skimmed over it in the lead. Removed and replaced "tonalist", as you recommended. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- The lede is much better. However, the first sentence still does say "was an American Tonalist oil painter", and Tonalism isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could say "was an oil painter of the American Barbizon school", and later, "Bannister's style of landscape painting". Stylistically, Tonalism is more succinct than American Barbizon school but as you say it's necessary to follow the sources. Curiocurio (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
- Lead
- "Life-long" – Merriam Webster and the OED both give this as a single, unhyphenated word.
- Done! —WS
- "his more well-known" – "better-known" would be the usual form
- Early life
- There is a "likely" in three paragraphs in succession. A bit of a variety would enliven the prose.
- One "likely" changed, another removed. —WS
- Boston activist, artist, and student
- "Once Bannister was established as an artist, abolitionist William Wells Brown praised Bannister" – no need to repeat Bannister – a pronoun instead of the second one would help the flow of the prose
- This was to avoid pronoun ambiguity, so I dropped the "his" too. Done! —WS.
- "He sang a tenor in the Crispus Attucks Choir" – should this be "sang as a tenor"?
- Oop, yes! —WS.
- "the Crispus Attucks Choir … The Histrionic Club" – looks odd to capitalise the second the but not the first.
- Done, lc'ed 2nd "the". —WS.
- "one of several reclamations of Gould Shaw" – "reclamations" baffles me. I can't work out the meaning of this sentence.
- Meant this to explain why the "Our Martyr" label was so important, but agree that it was awkward. It's "one of several memorials" now. —WS.
- "They marched under a banner reading "Equal rights for all men"" – this naturally leads the reader to wonder whether they wanted equal rights for women, too. Do we know Bannister's line on that point? Might be good to add it, if known.
- This I don't know—the quote came from an archival newspaper and wasn't mentioned in the other sources that I read. Confusingly, "men" might have been used in its old gender-neutral sense there. —WS.
- Providence
- "but a planned trip to Europe fell through due to funding problems" – or in plain English, for lack of money.
- Done! —WS
- "Stetson often mentioned Bannister in his personal diaries and once praised Bannister" – another place where "him" would be preferable, I think, to a second "Bannister".
- Done! —WS
- Artistic style
- "his tastes in literature were typical of an educated Victorian painter, including Spenser, Virgil, Ruskin, and Tennyson, from whose works much of his iconography can be traced" – two points here. First, it could do with a citation, and secondly it isn't clear if his iconography can be traced to all four of them or just to Tennyson.
- Afterthought: unless there is a particular reason for listing the four writers in that order it might be an idea to list them in either chronological (V, S, T, R) or alphabetical order. A minor point, but you may like to consider. Tim riley talk 12:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- In all my searching, all I could find was a reference to Bannister looking like Tennyson, so I think this sentence has to be struck. I did keep a mention of his love of poetry and classics, which a couple of sources say without citing specific authors. —WS
- "His later palette exhibited brighter, but more muted colors" – perhaps I'm being dim but I can't see how a colour can be brighter and more muted at the same time.
- Changed to "lighter, more muted" —WS
- "This was a large part of the double blind" – does the source really say double-blind rather than double-bind? If you look both terms up in Merriam-Webster you will see that the latter is plainly what is meant.
- Good catch; that was a typing error on my part. —WS
- Legacy
- "After his death, Bannister was largely forgotten by art history" – another repeated "Bannister" that might be better as a pronoun.
- Done! —WS
- "Art historian Anne Louise Avery is currently compiling the first catalogue raisonné and a major biography of Bannister's work – WP:DATED looms here. You need something like "In [date] it was announced that art historian Anne Louise Avery was compiling..." or "As of 2021 art historian Anne Louise Avery is compiling..."
- Dated to 2018, using the web source. —WS
That's all from me. This is an excellent and interesting article – a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Very glad to support the promotion of this article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I have much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Source reviews
Review by Nikkimaria
- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- The "Edwin" name is missing a source
- Cited to William Wells Brown source; its bio for Bannister is titled "Edwin". —WS
- "Seril Dodge House at left, where the Providence Art Club was first permanently located" - source?
- I made a mistake: there are two Seril Dodge Houses right next to each other. The Art Club first headquartered at the Seril Dodge House that is visible at the right side of the image. They only used the left-handside, older Dodge House from 1916 on. I'm replacing this picture, caption, and alt text. —WS
- Be consistent in when locations are included
- Added to all book citations. —WS
- Still inconsistencies here - see for example FN23. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, every {cite book} should have a location now. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Still inconsistencies here - see for example FN23. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Added to all book citations. —WS
- Be consistent in how web sources are formatted, and do not italicize publishers
- Updated refs so publishers/works are consistently listed under the right cite arg —WS
- Still inconsistencies here. FN5 for example links to cbc.ca, which is a work, but the display is simply "CBC". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done —WS
- Still inconsistencies here. FN5 for example links to cbc.ca, which is a work, but the display is simply "CBC". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Updated refs so publishers/works are consistently listed under the right cite arg —WS
- FN2 should cite the original source - this is just a republication
- Citation updated to Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History
- How does this article meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
- FN8 is missing date. Ditto FN26, check for others
- Added —WS
- Still issues here, eg FN31. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done (note that this was a new source I had added to address other review concerns) —WS
- Still issues here, eg FN31. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Added —WS
- The Libertator refs should include original source details
- I've added volume and issue numbers for the two articles; what other information did you mean? —WS
- Page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Added —WS
- Page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've added volume and issue numbers for the two articles; what other information did you mean? —WS
- FN12 is missing publisher
- Added! —WS
- Boston Post should be italicized
- Italed. —WS
- Page ranges should use dashes throughout, and be consistent in whether they are abbreviated
- Checked every |pages= and |p= field to add en dashes and make sure the ranges weren't abbreviated. —WS
- FN18: is this citing FN3? If so, why not include both authors?
- Both are included in new note. —WS
- Fn33 is dead
- Updated URL. —WS
- Fn37: can you explain the formatting choices here?
- See fix below in other source review. —WS
- Be consistent in whether "The" is included in newspaper names
- All The's added —WS
- Fn39 is missing accessdate
- Done! —WS
- Is there a reason the first Further reading entry was not cited as a source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find a digitized version or get to a library that has a copy. —WS
- Is interlibrary loan a possibility? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've been traveling, so I haven't been able to. I think I could gain access sometime in August; from the title's worldcat entry, the title isn't in public libraries near me, only university libraries. FWIW, I don't think this exhibition catalog is necessary for the completeness of this article—in my exp., exhibition catalogs rarely contain original historical research. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is interlibrary loan a possibility? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find a digitized version or get to a library that has a copy. —WS
Review by Usernameunique — Pass
References
- #1 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
- Done! —WS
- #2 — Publisher can be given as Encyclopedia.com. It appears to have a date, too. Is Encyclopedia.com reliable?
- Citing this to original publication in Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History (see other source review above). —WS
- #3 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #4 — Any particular reason to use a master's thesis?
- #7 — Any particular reason to use a Ph.D. dissertation, let alone so extensively?
- Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
- #8 — Date missing.
- Done! —WS
- #9 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #10 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. Why do you use the "– via" parameter here but not elsewhere?
- Ret. date removed. I had used "via" to try to mention the repository, but I have removed that from the citation. —WS
- #11 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
- Done! —WS
- #14 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- —Done! —WS
- #16 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. What is the source for the article being potentially apocryphal? Shouldn't it theoretically be easy enough (if time consuming) to search through that year's issues? Two periods at the end.
- Note section made; period dropped. The hypothesis about the story possibly being apocryphal is mine (and therefore potentially WP:OR). I did go through many issues of the New York Herald through newspaperarchive.com but did not find any such article. A lot of the sources I found pick up and repeat this story using the same verbatim quote; I started to doubt whether they had found the article in doing so or were just trusting their sources. For example, Men of Mark (1887) says that the article came out "twenty years ago" and all the sources I've seen seem to have assumed the article dates to exactly 1867. The note was the best compromise I could think of to express my doubts about the story, not being able to track the article down myself. (I could try again.) —Wingedserif (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- The notes section looks good. But now that you have it, you should convert the cites into footnotes (i.e., the same style as in the body of the article), rather than the in-text shorthand. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done! —WS
- The notes section looks good. But now that you have it, you should convert the cites into footnotes (i.e., the same style as in the body of the article), rather than the in-text shorthand. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note section made; period dropped. The hypothesis about the story possibly being apocryphal is mine (and therefore potentially WP:OR). I did go through many issues of the New York Herald through newspaperarchive.com but did not find any such article. A lot of the sources I found pick up and repeat this story using the same verbatim quote; I started to doubt whether they had found the article in doing so or were just trusting their sources. For example, Men of Mark (1887) says that the article came out "twenty years ago" and all the sources I've seen seem to have assumed the article dates to exactly 1867. The note was the best compromise I could think of to express my doubts about the story, not being able to track the article down myself. (I could try again.) —Wingedserif (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- #18 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. "pp." missing in the first cite—but both cites would be cleaner if styled as a note rather than a reference.
- Notes section made and page citations added. I realized that I should probably provide information about the source that Holland & Jennings cited as providing the quote. Let me know if the treatment I used was OK, or if I should try to find more information to use the original citation (ie, the 1876 article's title). —WS
- I don't think the original source is needed, though it's nice to nail down such details. Nor do I think the "As quoted in" wording is needed (it seems implied, if you just cite to the later source), but if you do use it, you might link Holland & Jennings 1992 to the source (e.g., how "Maryon 1912" is linked at Herbert Maryon#Articles). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Expanded to full citation template for Holland & Jennings. If you're OK with it, I think I'll leave citation for the quotation as is, since the Kenkebala book is so much more easily accessible for readers than the 1876 Christian Recorder. —WS
- I don't think the original source is needed, though it's nice to nail down such details. Nor do I think the "As quoted in" wording is needed (it seems implied, if you just cite to the later source), but if you do use it, you might link Holland & Jennings 1992 to the source (e.g., how "Maryon 1912" is linked at Herbert Maryon#Articles). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Notes section made and page citations added. I realized that I should probably provide information about the source that Holland & Jennings cited as providing the quote. Let me know if the treatment I used was OK, or if I should try to find more information to use the original citation (ie, the 1876 article's title). —WS
- #19 — Chesley seems like it's a first (or middle) name, not a last name. Why just the "W"?
- You're right, and a little searching revealed that he's WL-able. —WS
- #20 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Removed. —WS
- #22 — What is "Unbound"?
- The name of the specific blog run by the Smithsonian. Looking at it now, though, I think the claim is a bit of a stretch from the source I had linked. I'm going to delete this citation and look for another to replace it. —WS
- #23 — ISBN should be hyphenated.
- Done! —WS
- #25 — Vivien Raynor can take a link. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #26 — Missing date.
- Done! —WS
- #28 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #29 — Retrieval date not needed for archived source, which by design is how it appears on a particular day.
- Done! —WS
- #30 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
- Done! —WS
- #31 — Any reason to cite a Ph.D. dissertation?
- #36 — Missing date.
- Done! —WS
- #37 — I'm confused by "Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation. or Art Research (IFAR)-Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation".
- Looks like when I used the cite helper, it weirdly cut off the front of the full site name. I've set the publisher to "International Foundation for Art Research" —WS
- #38 — Missing author.
- Done! —WS
- #39 — Missing author. Missing date. Missing retrieval date.
- Done! —WS
- #42 — The Boston Globe may as well be linked. And any reason "The" is not included?
- Done! (There wasn't.) —WS
- General — What's the reasoning behind red linking some, but not all, journals?
- Gone through all the citejournals and added in WLs–turns out most of them have articles already. —WS
Further reading
- Inconsistency between "Rhode Island" and "R.I."
- Switched so both use spelled-out state name. —WS
- Why are only initials given for Otto's first name? Any OCLC, or link to it online?
- The Holland thesis and Perry book only gave initials for their citation of the article. This looks to have been by a Joseph K. Ott (I had mistyped his last name). I cannot find any other digital reference to it with Worldcat, Google Scholar, or just plain search engines. —WS
- Are you sure "1828–1901: " is part of the title? Searching for the just "The Barbizon School in Providence" on Google turns up a few hits (although it remains admittedly obscure). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ach, you're right—year range removed from the title. —WS
- Are you sure "1828–1901: " is part of the title? Searching for the just "The Barbizon School in Providence" on Google turns up a few hits (although it remains admittedly obscure). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Holland thesis and Perry book only gave initials for their citation of the article. This looks to have been by a Joseph K. Ott (I had mistyped his last name). I cannot find any other digital reference to it with Worldcat, Google Scholar, or just plain search engines. —WS
This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional points
- Notes 1 and 3 should have footnotes, not full citations.
- As pointed out above (with the Maryon example), note 2 could say "appears in Simmons 1887, pp. 1127–1131.", with "Simmons 1887" a link to the full work (which could appear in "Further reading" or a separate "Bibliography" section). But I'll leave this up to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've done both of the above (I was having trouble with the sfn template, so I used harvnb instead). Let me know what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingedserif, I've changed the formatting of the notes to allow for footnotes. See what you think of my edits—it's what I had in mind with the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping in—as I mentioned, I'm not too familiar with the citing templates you mentioned, even with the examples, so I wasn't sure what you were asking for. I do think that I will remove the in-note pp. range for Simmons—since the range is already in the full ref, I don't think we need to have it duplicated. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingedserif, I've changed the formatting of the notes to allow for footnotes. See what you think of my edits—it's what I had in mind with the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've done both of the above (I was having trouble with the sfn template, so I used harvnb instead). Let me know what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Use of theses
I wanted to centralize the questions about this article's compliance w/ WP:SCHOLARSHIP here, for everybody's ease of reference. In short, the article as it is now cites often to two theses (one MA, one PhD), which is normally discouraged.
The solution for the Lee Costa art history MA thesis should be easy but will take some time on my part. Lee Costa's thesis was republished in a scholarly edited collection Locating American Art. I can't find a copy online, so I am going to try to track one down so that I can confirm whether my current citations are still valid (since we have no idea how the text may have changed in the publication process). Similarly, some of its aesthetic judgments are sourced to an article by Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw, "Landscapes of Labor"—I'm going to try to get access to that as well.
The Holland PhD thesis I am less sure of. I have gone through and switched as many citations as I can to other sources. However, Holland's thesis is the longest, most comprehensive work on Bannister I've been able to find. There are details I have only been able to confirm through her thesis (which might raise questions of whether those details are WP:DUE or not), and I think most are worth keeping. Bannister did have quite an impact in his early works and I think it's worth discussing his artistic style in depth; to do so, Holland's thesis discusses Bannister's work in the context of the cultural environment of Boston and the comparative works of Bannister's colleagues. Holland acknowledges the guidance of David Driskell, an expert in African American art, and Lynda Roscoe Hartigan, a renowned curator, in her thesis, as well as that of two Columbia advisers, Barbara Novak and Suzanne Blier. The thesis was cited in a handful of other theses, as well as the academic books Hopes and Expectations: The Origins of the Black Middle Class in Hartford (Beeching 2016), Child of the Fire: Mary Edmonia Lewis and the Problem of Art History’s Black and Indian Subject (Buick 2010), Diaspora and Visual Culture: Representing Africans and Jews (Mirzoeff 2014) and the non-academic The Other Side of Color: African American Art in the Collection of Camille O. and William H. Cosby, Jr (Driskell, Cosby, Hanks 2001). Holland's encyclopedia article and exhibition catalog (the publication of the latter was before her PhD) on him are also cited in this article—I think her work is generally reliable.
I'll leave it there for now; I'm curious to hear what people's concern with the sources and specific citations are. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've replaced the Costa MA thesis with citations to her published book chapter. I've also added the Du Bois Shaw article, which has allowed me to replace a few Holland thesis citations and in other cases add an additional citation in support. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- What about Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Abbot thesis I'm essentially just using to say "this gallery displayed Bannister works during this time", which I do not think is an extraordinary claim. I have also supported the claim with a web source. The published thesis has been cited in (at least) African American Artists and the Art Market and The Routledge Companion to African American Art History. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- What about Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Coord note
Hi Nikkimaria and Usernameunique, could I get a sense of where we're at from your perspectives re. sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have replied on a number of points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've left a few comments above about the formatting in the notes section. That will be easy to clear up and then I'll be signed off. I would also note that given the explanations regarding the theses above (and the fact that the remaining masters thesis is used for one, minor, point), I'm not concerned about their use. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "he and Christiana Carteaux moved out of their home on College Hill in Providence, Rhode Island". This could imply that they became homeless. I would say where they moved to.
- Done —WS
- "until institutions like the National Museum of African Art brought him back to national attention in the United States" Maybe add when. 1970s?
- Done —WS
- "Hannah Alexander Bannister". No change needed, but my mother also had the second name Alexander, her mother's maiden name. I wonder whether Hannah had that second name for the same reason.
- "The brothers' role as barbers and status as mixed race". This is stated as if you have already covered their mixed race. It should be covered above.
- This one is hard to decide what to do about—sources are divided about the parentage of Bannister: some say his mother was white, others disagree, and there's simply not that much information about his parents. Furthermore, the point is more how the brothers were perceived; the Holland source quote is "Bannister's place in Boston's black community also derived from his designation as a light-skinned African American [...], his middle-class profession [...], and upper-class aspirations. ... Edward and William Bannister, both identified in the 1850 census as mulattos, benefited from this group's greater opportunities for employment and social mobility". I'd prefer to leave the sentence as is, mentioned at the part of his life where the source discusses it. What do you think? —Wingedserif (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think the points you are making here are worth adding to the article - the disagreement in sources about his mother's race where you mention her above, and identification in census as mulatto. In view of the importance of race in Bannister's life, the more detail the better Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've added more detail to the initial note about Bannister's parentage, to explain how this article's major sources have dealt with the uncertainty. Let me know if you think that works, —Wingedserif (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am still confused. You say possibly Barbadian parents, which would usually imply both black. One could be white Barbadian, but this needs explanation and the note says nothing about possible Barbadian parentage of his mother. Holland contradicts herself saying he was mixed race and both parents of African descent. The latter must be wrong as he said in census he was mulatto. Maybe leave out Holland's views on the subject if she does not make sense. Bannister saying mulatto in census should be mentioned and implies mother not African and this needs discussion in the main text. I realise this is difficult in view of the confusion in the sources but it needs sorting out for the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- More detail just isn't in the most-used/most-extensive sources, and they do contradict one another. It's difficult to interpret Holland's writing on the subject because the change from source to source might be the result of more research, or just a change in her opinion. I am reticent to use the term "mulatto" in the article since, at that time, US census takers were the ones who determined the race entry for individuals—all it records is how he was perceived by a census taker on that day; I don't think it's a good indicator of overall social treatment. I think the best option, if explaining all the source discrepancies is too confusing, is to cut the note down. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I misunderstood you on mulatto - I thought you meant that it was his own description. How about changing "near the St. Croix River, to possibly Barbadian parents." to something like "near the St. Croix River. His father was black Barbadian and his mother's parentage is uncertain, but he was regarded as mixed race." I think you could cut down the note as it has some speculation which is not very relevant. Also I forgot to ask, were barbers then regarded as middle-class professionals? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I changed that first sentence to use your wording and cut down the note. I did keep the hypothesis about the Black Loyalists because it's mentioned twice in sources. In the context for the quote I provided above, Holland indicates that barbers were a
middle-class profession
. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I changed that first sentence to use your wording and cut down the note. I did keep the hypothesis about the Black Loyalists because it's mentioned twice in sources. In the context for the quote I provided above, Holland indicates that barbers were a
- Perhaps worth mentioning that Christiana was of mixed African American and Narragansett Indian parentage?
- Done —WS
- "Bannister's colleague, Jacob R. Andrews" Colleague in what?
- Done. Andrews framed other Bannister paintings and he was also a member of the Histrionic Club. —WS
- "solar plates". This needs a link or an explanatory note.
- Done, linked to cyanotype —WS
- "Prudence Nelson Bell". This is formatted as a link to a Commons file. I thought external links in text were forbidden. Nikkimaria have I got that wrong?
- Correct, that shouldn't be linked like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done, removed link —WS
- "despite Gould Shaw's Boston Brahmin background." I do not think you need "despite" as he was a strong abolitionist.
- Going to push back on this. The Kresser source says, "[Brahmin abolitionists] did not consider African American social equality an end in itself, nor did they wish their moral efforts to be relativized through association with a particular cause. Their worldview did not recognize material definitions of social justice; consequently, it did not sanction a regime in which identifiable groups fought and negotiated for equal measures of esteem, goods, or opportunity." Later, "While Lewis and Bannister acted quickly to celebrate Shaw’s legacy, Boston’s Brahmin class, a ponderous collective both deeply conservative and tortuously discreet, worked slowly but purposefully toward a visual interpretation of its own." That "despite" expresses that Bannister's portrait stands in opposition to the Brahmins' self-identification and was used for a specific, practical purpose (the relief fair) opposed to the Brahmins' form of abolitionism. If you'd like me to make that connection more explicit, I can try—I had a hard time representing the source material in writing that part of the article. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think that if you say "despite" it would be helpful to explain why. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I took a stab at this, which involved reordering a couple paragraphs as well, to help make the point. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not understand "abstract ideals of Boston Brahmin abolitionists" or "indifferent martyr". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- For the first, I have written an explanatory sentence that is a paraphrase of the citation quote. For the second, can you suggest a replacement or say what you do not understand? "Indifferent" is the simplest word I can think of to express the idea that the Brahmin representation's of Gould Shaw showed him as an unengaged, idealized martyr, not one that was invested in the cause he died for. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- How about replacing "the Boston Brahmins tried to redefine Gould Shaw as an indifferent martyr" to "the Boston Brahmins portrayed him as having died for a cause he did not greatly care about"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I get what your suggestion is going for; I'm trying to think of a more concise replacement... what if I changed the sentence to this?: "Through art like the 1884 Robert Gould Shaw Memorial, the Boston Brahmins tried to reject the possessive "Our Martyr" label given to him by Black artists like Bannister and Edmonia Lewis." —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- That seems OK to me but I would say "rejected" rather than "tried to reject". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done! —Wingedserif (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Bannister eventually studied at the Lowell Institute with the artist William Rimmer for about a year." When?
- Done, while Rimmer taught at the Institute between 1863 to 1865; I think that's as specific as it gets in the sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- "sailing Narragansett Bay" sailing in or sailing around?
- The MW definition of sailing as a transitive verb does not require a preposition, eg,
sail the ocean
. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- The MW definition of sailing as a transitive verb does not require a preposition, eg,
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Unlike the Hudson River School style,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes". It sounds odd to say that Bannister was unlike a style. Maybe "Unlike the Hudson River School artists,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes["
- Done! —WS
- "Approaching Storm". Another external link which should be removed. You could add "(see right)" instead.
- Done! —WS
- "In one work, Hay Gatherers, Bannister depicts African American field laborers that combines his rural landscapes with a representation of the racial oppression and labor exploitation that marked Rhode Island". This is ungrammatical.
- Split this up into two sentences to make it grammatical. —WS
- "he combined a seemingly idealized landscape with his early political practice". Combining a landscape with practice sounds odd to me.
- I think I've made the two elements sound more compatible. —WS
- "Rhode Island College dedicated its Art Gallery in Bannister's name with the exhibition: Four From Providence: Alston, Bannister, Jennings & Prophet" I do not know what "dedicated its Art Gallery" means in this context. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- RIC has a Bannister Gallery—I've lowercased "art gallery" since it's not used as a name in our article. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not see anything about the exhibition in the source. Perhaps "The Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame inducted Bannister in 1976 and Rhode Island College's art is exhibited in Bannister Gallery, named in his honor." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found the exhibition pamphlet information, to keep the title. I do think keeping the year is important. —Wingedserif (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now, although some of the references may become dead in the future so you might consider running the archiving bot at [19]. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the page! I just ran the IA bot to archive the web sources. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Featured article reviews
Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. |
2003 Pacific hurricane season
- Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, diff
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes
- Notified: Amandajm, WP Visual arts, WP Vatican City, WP Christianity, WP Collections Care, Noticed by Sandy last November
This older FA promotion contains substantial uncited text. I'm also concerned that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned, as it would seem logical for this article to include information on how these improvements are kept up. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately User:Amandajm, the main author is rarely around these days. But your concern "that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned" seems odd to me. What would these consist of? What would "keeping up" consist of? The general idea is surely that you now leave the fresco well alone for a century or more, no doubt monitoring the condition every so often - probably through binoculars - they won't want to put scaffolding up again in a hurry. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like they have some ongoing things - looks like a decent overview. Because people are in there, there's always the little bits of contamination that comes from crowds, so they apparently do minor cleanings regularly and they have this tiny cherrypicker-type thing that they use to get to them. Special LED lighting has been installed that is less harmful to the painting. This is an extremely detailed journal article discussing to great depth a high-tech HVAC system that has been installed to keep temperature, CO2, and humidity where desired, and also mentions some sensors and diffusers used. Wall Street Journal has a piece (can't tell how detailed, as it's largely paywalled), but I'm not sure that WSJ is top source for art. There seems to be a little more, as well (including what looks like a second journal article on the HVAC system, of all things). While I don't think we should devote more than a paragraph to this topic, it looks like there's enough lower-profile ongoing maintenance to be at least worth mentioning. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
France national rugby union team
- Notified: User talk:Shudde, WT:FRANCE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, talk page notification
I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's original notice 'There is significant uncited text, it is unclear how the tables are cited, and the post-2010 stuff is very underdeveloped' Also note that the tournament record and the history and the coaching material overlaps, as the tournament record goes into detail in the game results in the tournaments and often in more detail than the history, and then the coaching section just repeats the notable results that occurred under the coach. There is a passing mention of the French style of play in the coaching section, but this is never expanded upon. There is no comment on any traditional French styles/strengths or evolution in playing style. Also, the Six Nations section just has an overall results count so one cannot tell when the team was doing well or poorly and the history section only mentions years when they won so one can't tell what happened in the other years and tell when they had ups/downs and/or the coach was fired etc. So the artilce doesn't appear comprehensive Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Ramón Emeterio Betances
- Notified: Caribbean H.Q., WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject France, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2020-09-21 2021-07-07
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and short sections that need to be merged or deleted. Many citations are to Felix Ojeda Reyes's book and other sources should be sought out and used. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Flag of Armenia
- Notified: Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky, Zscout370, WP Armenia, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in late March
This early 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since and needs work to meet the modern FA standards. There is uncited text in places, a few spot with MOS:SANDWICH issues, some of the sources (such as Flags of the World and Vexilla Mundi) are questionable, and there's material about symbolism in the lead that is not found in the body, suggesting that there should be a body section about symbolism of the flag. Hog Farm Talk 00:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Malcolm X
- Notified: Malik Shabazz, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, 05-28-2020 06-19-2021
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has become bloated, with multiple short paragraphs that need to be merged or deleted. The article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, whose works should be included in the article or not listed if they are not high-quality sources. After comparing the current article to the promoted version from 2009, I see sources were added to "Works Cited" that might not be the highest quality; considering the amount of literature on this person, the article can remove less reputable sources that might be acceptable in other FA articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. Why invoke this ponderous process when you've identified three simple areas of concern you could raise on the talk page or address yourself? However, I will say in advance, with regard to one of those areas, that the idea that paragraphs are supposed to be of a certain length is pure WP:MISSSNODGRASS. And now that I think about it, what about "Further Reading" entries which are not included in the article but are high quality -- are you saying they still shouldn't be listed, that there shouldn't be a Further Reading section? EEng 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: I reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, a group reviewing over 4000 FAs that were promoted between 2004 to 2010. When an article is close to meeting the FA criteria, I try to fix it myself or leave it for others. However, this article's Further Reading section is extensive and would take me months to learn about this subject, read the relevant material, and filter out the high-quality sources and material. This would pull me away from reviewing other articles that are much closer to meeting FA criteria. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I am willing to copyedit it and review it once improvements are complete, as I am doing for several articles already at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just chalk this up to the ongoing mystery of why so much energy is invested in deciding which articles should/should not carry the little star, instead of just improving articles, period. The weird thing is that many FAs are close to unreadable. EEng 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: If you find an unreadable FA, please notice it and bring it to FAR. This process encourages editors to revisit articles they wrote a decade ago and improve their quality. Sometimes the FAR nudge causes an editor to make improvements. Also, I encourage you to go to review articles at WP:URFA/2020. We always need more editors helping us out. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have to concur with EEng. This is one I'm honestly not sure why it was still on FARGIVEN, let alone why it was taken to FAR -- there was quite a bit of editing after the FAR notice to improve the issues brought up. The complaints given here don't strike me as at the severity justifying FAR. Vaticidalprophet 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Vaticidalprophet I am happy to help address and fix the concerns that I pointed out at the top. I posted my notice on June 19, 2021, outlining different concerns than what was given by another editor in 2020. No one answered the notice on the talk page, and there was one reverted edit and some minor fixes until I posted here. The goal of this exercise isn't to take away featured status, it's to improve the article. If you (or someone else) is willing to help with improvements, I am willing to help analyse the sources, copyedit, and review the article to ensure this is still meeting FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have to concur with EEng. This is one I'm honestly not sure why it was still on FARGIVEN, let alone why it was taken to FAR -- there was quite a bit of editing after the FAR notice to improve the issues brought up. The complaints given here don't strike me as at the severity justifying FAR. Vaticidalprophet 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: If you find an unreadable FA, please notice it and bring it to FAR. This process encourages editors to revisit articles they wrote a decade ago and improve their quality. Sometimes the FAR nudge causes an editor to make improvements. Also, I encourage you to go to review articles at WP:URFA/2020. We always need more editors helping us out. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just chalk this up to the ongoing mystery of why so much energy is invested in deciding which articles should/should not carry the little star, instead of just improving articles, period. The weird thing is that many FAs are close to unreadable. EEng 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: I reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, a group reviewing over 4000 FAs that were promoted between 2004 to 2010. When an article is close to meeting the FA criteria, I try to fix it myself or leave it for others. However, this article's Further Reading section is extensive and would take me months to learn about this subject, read the relevant material, and filter out the high-quality sources and material. This would pull me away from reviewing other articles that are much closer to meeting FA criteria. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I am willing to copyedit it and review it once improvements are complete, as I am doing for several articles already at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Texas A&M University
- Notified: Buffs ([20]), WikiProjectHigher education, ([21])
This article was promoted over a decade ago and it is showing its age. Much of the content is dated, sizeable portions of the article are unsourced, and there is a heavy reliance on primary sources and even some unreliable sources such as IMDb. Some of the images also lack alt text. I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made. ~ HAL333 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- HAL333, well, this is a bit of a joke. You hardly "expressed concerns with this article back in early April." In fact, you made one single vague statement and question: "I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed?" Just because no one answered your question then doesn't mean a lack of a response equates to "the article is lacking." To the contrary, this was brought up in the FAC nomination and had the requisite support, to include such citations as-is. Your opinion hardly overrides that consensus. The University providing such sources is no different than the Smithsonian or US Government providing such sources on themselves regarding general, uncontentious facts; falsification of such figures and statistics would incur financial penalties and/or criminal liabilities. They are an educational institution and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Accordingly, I don't see that you've satisfied the first requirement for a FAR.
- As to the rest of your concerns that were FIRST brought up here (and never brought up prior), I would be happy to address them, but you need to be much more specific.
- Which parts are "dated"?
- Which portions do you feel are "unsourced"? By my quick count, there are a total of only 14 sentences that do not have a direct reference associated with them. Most of these were referenced by the previous sentences, are uncontentious facts, are frivolous facts that could easily have been removed, or, in the case of the single sentence in the lead, mentioned later in the article.
- Which sources are unreliable? The sole reference to IMDb is Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. REK has told this story at hundreds of concerts. While a better source, such as the youtube video above, would be a better source, the fact itself is not in question.
Which images lack alt text?Alt text may be desired by you, but does not appear to be one of the requirements of a Featured Article
- I'll be happy to address these concerns with specifics, but I'm not going to jump through vague hoops over vaguery/exaggeration. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've fixed every unreferenced instance on the page that I could find by either finding a source or deleting the necessary sentence. I've also replaced the REK reference with a MUCH better one.
- It should be noted that during the FAC, concerns were made that it was OVER-referenced. Given that there is not a single passage without a reference, I think this point can be pretty much put to bed.
I await clarifications on your other contentions. This only leaves things you feel are "dated", which is completely subjective without further clarification. Buffs (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)- Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:
- Most of the Rankings section.
- Did the "University era" end in 2013?
- The last three paragraghs of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats.
- The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present.
- Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
- As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...)
- Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized.
- For it to be accessible to screenreaders, it still needs alt text for every image.
- Hopefully we can address those. ~ HAL333 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states
Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text.
So my interpretation would be that yes, alt text is required for FAs. If there's a reason to believe that having alt text would make the article worse, I'd be open to considering an IAR argument for leaving it out, but if it's just that no one wants to put in the few minutes of work to add it, I really don't have much sympathy for that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)- I have little sympathy for someone expecting others to jump through hoops for something they could have fixed in a few minutes and threatening to delist a featured article. I do not believe this was EVER addressed on the talk page which should have been the FIRST place to go. Given the misleading rationale for this page in the first place, this feels much more like a person attempting to manipulate/exert control over forcing others to do something.
- Now, I'm going to do it., but I do so under protest that this was done in exceptionally poor form. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states
- I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Now, to address each of the other points brought up:
- Most of the Rankings section. The rankings section includes some of the latest information from 2021...we will update 2022 when it happens.
- Did the "University era" end in 2013? No, but few major things have happened in the past 8 years. If you feel something has been missed, feel free to mention it, but you can't say you're missing something without specifying what's missing.
- The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present. I wouldn't say it needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I've since updated it.
- Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.[vague]
- As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...) That statistic is 508,000 and is sourced in the Texas_A&M_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty section. If you have other specific instances, I will be happy to address them.
- Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized. Unless you have a citation from WP:MOS, that is your personal preference. Citations are provided in the middle of sentences when appropriate and at the end of sentences when the sources apply to the whole sentence. This is consistent throughout and is pedantic to edit
- The last three paragraghs [sic] of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats. While we can update more, it doesn't need to be 100% up to date with the most relevant stats or it should be delisted. I will do what I can to update the figures.
- To be blunt, this FAR needs to be pulled as malformed and certainly not within the guidelines of how one of these should roll; borderline done in bad faith (based on the opening logic, specifically "I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made."). There's no reason this should have even been brought to FAR. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:
Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources:
- "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"
- "brazosgenealogy.org"
- Britannica is a tertiary source.
- asumag.com
- Is the Military Times considered reliable?
- Kiplinger?
- Applied Biosytems?
- Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?
- Etc.
I'm not being picky either. When I got my first FA through earlier this year, I was told that I couldn't use Politico. I have ignored places where primary sources can/should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. Sources also need to be standardized. ~ HAL333 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Re:"I'm not being picky either". Yes you are. And so were the people who said you couldn't use Politico. What is a reliable source depends highly on the claim being made. If I say "Biden/Trump said ______" and cite the primary reference for such a claim, that's perfectly accurate. The same could be said for the KKK or a Black Panther statement. Such a citation is not only appropriate, but desired so people can read the statement for themselves. The accuracy of said claim is irrelevant; so is the source as a WP:RS: they are the stated claims that were made from the organizations themselves. If Ben Shapiro states something on DailyWire.com, it's valid to cite that source as where he said it as it is the publishing arm of his organization. That does not mean the statement is accurate nor does it mean that DailyWire is somehow a more reliable source because of it, but it IS a reliable source for the statement itself even if it is self-published.
- Re: "Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources" I'm not going to go through an article and address the few that "may not be high quality reliable sources" if you're going to be so vague and include even simple typos. WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. There's VERY little that you couldn't just fix yourself and would require far less work than what you're putting in here. If you are contending that any of these are unreliable sources, it's incumbent upon you to explain why, not vaguely claim there might be problems.
- Lastly, this is not the forum for such claims and you have not acknowledged/corrected your deceptive initial statement. I'm not inclined to address such concerns only to have a litany of new concerns and preferences brought to the table ad nauseam every time they are addressed.
- So, for that last time...for each of these points"
- "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org" WP:SOFIXIT; you wasted WAY more space here complaining than it would have taken for what is clearly a simple typo fix.
- "brazosgenealogy.org" Do you consider this unreliable? All the facts I see are accurate.
- "Britannica is a tertiary source." So? What's your point? WP:RS "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."
- "asumag.com" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 1 2 3. I'm truly perplexed as to what the problem is here.
- "Is the Military Times considered reliable?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source).
- "Kiplinger?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source). This is the kind of asinine standards you're attempting to apply here. You clearly aren't even looking at the context in which they are used.
- "Applied Biosytems? [sic]" Again, an utterly uncontroversial claim. The other source was a press release by the school.
- "Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?" In general, yes. This was addressed in the FAC and has been addressed multiple times on the talk page. Please review the archives.
- "Etc." Sorry, but no one can possibly address what you're questioning here. There's not enough information.
- You come up with a list of problems. I'll be happy to address them. But a vague "Here's a few, maybe, and there are more...because it was done to me" is horrible logic for proposing to delist an FA. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some issues I spot:
- Missing an "organization and administration" section (see WP:UNIGUIDE for what it should contain).
- Veterans section is way too short to stand on its own.
- Enrollment surpassing 50k in 2011 is history moreso than anything about the student body.
- A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section.
- It's promotional to talk about The Battalion's awards before ever introducing it.
- Notable alumni section is significantly overlong.
- Various prose issues throughout: "Note that", MOS:%, the promotional "over 500,000 strong"
- There is probably a bunch more, but that's to start. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, not a requirement of WP:FA, I'll be limiting my responses to those that are FA requirements for now. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed the Veteran section; merged as part of the rankings.
- Removed 50K reference...not really needed.
- Fixed the Battalion reference.
- Fixed 500K, "note that", updated percent -> % via rephrasing.
- Notable alumni section was formed by consensus and agreed upon in the FAC.
- The FAC was in 2007, so I can't put much stock in it. Notable alumni sections have been discussed frequently recently, and as a WP:HED participant, I have a good sense of the range of them. This one is way longer than most—it'll need significant trimming to avoid undue weight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Re: "A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section." What parts? All of this pertains to parts of the school that aren't on the main campus...I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HAL
I'm going to reset my comments. I wasn't trying to be antagonistic and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I don't think the issues with this article are so severe that it will be delisted, as they are fixable. Ignoring referencing issues for now, these are some of the things I noticed:
- A sentence is needed on the Giant Magellan Telescope's completion.
- George W. Bush is linked more than once in the body.
- Could a year be included for the Tamu Massif sentence? Could it also be integrated into another paragraph?
each of six different species
is awkward.In 2003, over 1,200 Aggie students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad.
Could a more recent stat replace this?- There may be some undue weight issues with the Qatar campus. Unless it is much more notable than the others, I would scale it back.
In late 2013
The late isn't really necessary.- There's an image sandwiching issue in the cadet section.
An April 2005 campus survey found that 74% of the students were involved with at least one organization and that 88% participated in a campus organization in the past
needs to be updated.- Paragraph beginning "Since 1955" is unsourced.
most recently, China in 2013
- Maybe add a paranthetical phrase explaining what a Hillel organization is.
Twenty-one Aggies play in the NFL
This can become dated very quickly.Rip Torn a legend of the silver screen
sound a little too authorial.In addition, the Corporation for National and Community Service listed A&M among the 500 academic institutions in the 2005–06 President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll
is dated.- Could
The Princeton Review ranked The Battalion, founded in 1893, as the 5th best college newspaper in America in 2010
be updated? - Is 100 Things You Gotta Do Before You Graduate a one-time list?
- The stats in the two opening paragraphs of the athletics section need to be updated.
- Para 1, done. What in the second paragraph needs to be updated?
In 2004, CBS SportsLine.com ranked Kyle Field the top football stadium while Sporting News ranked it fourth.
Dated.- Fixed.
- Check to make sure the basketball section is up to date.
- It is.
During the 2006 fall semester, 20.5 percent of the student body lived on campus in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus.
needs to be updated.- Done, now 23%.
- I would check the rest of the residential life section to see if it is still accurate.
- Updated dorms/apartments; reviewed Student Life
I'll add more later. Feel free to respond under each bullet if you want to keep it a little more organized. ~ HAL333 22:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Here are some more non-reference issues:
- Why is "the Corps" italicized?
Since 1876, 225 Aggies have served as generals or Flag Officers
Has there not been a new Aggie general or Flag Officer since 2008? Also, should Flag Officer be capitalized?as of spring 2012, the co-ed Corps boasted an enrollment of more than 2000 cadets
Needs an update.drills must be drawn by hand as computer marching programs have returned errors
Is this still the case 14 years later?- As of 2019, yes. You can run/diagram the drills by removing safeties in the program, but that introduces other problems. To date, no computer marching programs can create those drills and they are hand drawn or drawn with the aid of a computer, but some portions are hand drawn. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
wider world to Texas A&M by discussing issues of national and international importance with top-caliber speakers like then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, Texas A&M students, and those from across the nation
sounds a little promotional.- Could a year be added for Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University?
- Typically, the year isn't used when referencing a case unless there are two instances of the same dispute. i.e. Brown v. Board of Education
- Add "(GSC)" after
Graduate Student Council
- rephrased to eliminate acronym
- I assume the Student Recreation Center is not still being renovated 15 years later.
- Is the The Big Event still the largest? Could a more recent ref be used?
The Aggies are a member of the Southeastern Conference in all sports as of 2012
needs an update.- Why? They haven't changed conferences
- The reader doesn't care what the situation was in 2012. They want to know what the situation is currently. ~ HAL333 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- They joined the SEC in 2012. They haven't left. I'm perplexed as to how that is unclear.
- Then there's no need to say "as of". Just say they joined the SEC in 2012. That's not something that changes so often that it needs an "as of". Furthermore, I would move the sentence
Texas A&M left the Big 12 Conference for the Southeastern Conference on July 1, 2012
from the history section to the athletics section. And just general reword for clarity. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then there's no need to say "as of". Just say they joined the SEC in 2012. That's not something that changes so often that it needs an "as of". Furthermore, I would move the sentence
- They joined the SEC in 2012. They haven't left. I'm perplexed as to how that is unclear.
- The reader doesn't care what the situation was in 2012. They want to know what the situation is currently. ~ HAL333 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why? They haven't changed conferences
- Same with
As of 2007, Aggies had earned 173 conference titles and 19 national championships
- Should have been 2021...didn't get saved.
- The following two sentences need to be updated as well.
- UT Austin is linked multiple times in the body.
- fixed
- So is football.
- fixed
- Could demographic stats on the student body be added?
recently renewed rivalries
is dated.- fixed
- Kyle Field is linked multiple times.
- It's linked twice, first as a prominent architectural structure and later when it is referred to as the home field of the football team. MOS:DL states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article..." and we took that to mean that it could be added more than once. Given the differing context of both, it made sense to link both. This is done sparingly.
- Could a secondary source be used for the claim that TAMU alumni are some of the "most active"?
- We can add as many as you want. Take your pick: [22] [23] [24] [25]
- Rephrase
Rick Perry served as the United States Secretary of Energy, former Governor of Texas, and 2012 US presidential candidate
- "mayor" should be capitalized.
- done
- Should "Transgender Judge" be capitalized?
Aggies made their mark on the gridiron
andAggies have also made a mark on pop culture
are too authorial.- These editorial choices were made during FAC by consensus to address comments there. They are not authorial as they are introductory in nature.
More comments later. ~ HAL333 00:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Third wave of comments:
Following in Keen and Lovett’s footsteps was a young songwriter named Rich O’Toole who started his career playing on the back porch of the Dixie Chicken.
also sounds authorial.- Same as above
Neal Boortz is a nationally syndicated talk show host with the sixth largest listening audience in the United States
needs an update and an "as of year".- updated
- The info on the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute uses a primary source.
- Primary sources are permitted. Added NY Times reference.
and Vice President of the Pappas Restaurants family, is known for his design of the many different Pappas Family restaurants.
is unsourced.- It isn't unsourced. The source was just in the middle of the sentence; fixed.
- Rephrase
many Aggies have become leaders in the armed forces, and were featured in the 1943 film We've Never Been Licked
- Done
- Where is the source for note 1?
- The "Notable alumni and faculty" is generally confusing. For many, it's not clear whether they are faculty or alumni. I would break it up into subections for alumni and faculty.
- They all appear to be alumni; altered
- Ref 274 is dead.
- That a link is not currently available doesn't change where it was originally pulled from and it is still valid as that is where the information came from (though the link should be marked as dead); replaced it anyway.
- "Nave" typo in ref 267
- fixed to "Navy". Good catch
- Ref 85 is a bare url.
- Fixed
- Works are sometimes wikilinked and sometimes not. Standardize.
That's all for now. ~ HAL333 01:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hal Arbitrary break
- Update
Combined, the total endowment for the TAMUS stands at $11.1 billion, as of 2015
to conform with figure in infobox. - Space grant, maroon and white, and 1876 don't need to be cited in the infobox.
- "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...should be supported by an inline citation". Every single one of these has been challenged and cited. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Best Value Schools,[80] Texas A&M ranked number one in the nation for the best college for veterans, as ranked by return on investment. Texas A&M is also ranked number two for veterans in USA Today[81] and number nine for "business schools for veterans" by the Military Times.[82]
needs "as of"s.- Ref 154 is a bare url.
- The way works are cited are still not standardized. Sometimes the works are listed as urls (such as "Qatar.tamu.edu" or "bestforvets.militarytimes.com"). I would get rid of those to make them conform with the rest.
- The PETA paragraph is given undue weight compared with the others. I would scale it down.
spring 2012, the co-ed Corps boasted an enrollment of more than 2000 cadets
still dated- If we are going to give weight to pizza executives, I think one or two paragraphs on notable faculty is appropriate. A&M has had some really great teachers and employees, like Norman Borlaug and they should be covered.
- I'll be happy to add Norman Borlaug, et al. Just name who you think is missing. As noted below, the section is too long in the opinions of some adding more could be problematic. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2004, Texas A&M System faculty and research submitted 121 new inventions and established 78 new royalty-bearing licensing agreements; the innovations resulted in income of $8 million. The Texas A&M Technology Licensing Office filed for 88 patents for protection of intellectual property in 2004.
is datedTexas A&M ranks 13th among U.S. research universities in exchange agreements with institutions abroad and student participation in study abroad programs
needs to be updated and have an "as of".In 2003, over 5,800 Aggie students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad in 110 countries
dated.Money Magazine, in 2006, named College Station the most educated city in Texas, and the 11th most educated American city
datedApproximately 23% of the student body lived on campus, primarily in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus
needs an "as of"At Texas A&M, about 10% of the undergraduate population is affiliated with a Greek fraternity or sorority.
needs an as of (unless it doesnt really fluctuate.- It doesn't really fluctuate Buffs (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The women's basketball team has 1 Southwest Conference Tournament championship, 1 regular season Big 12 Conference championship and 2 Big 12 Tournament championships, most recently in 2011
dated- First paragraph of rankings section needs to be updated.
- The second and third paragraph of the Student body section needs to be updated.
Should these be addressed (along with the ones above), I'll be happy to support keeping this as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Motions to close
Close without FARC At this point, I think it's clear I'm happy to address any issues you find and respectfully request that this FAR be rescinded by its submitter as the pretenses for its listing are unfounded/unwarranted. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Review by Z1720
Hi Buffs, let's get this FAR closed as a keep! I am going to review this article and make copy-edits along the way. Please review my edits and, if you choose to revert them, please note them below and explain why. I also have some concerns/questions that I've listed below, which I hope you can resolve.
- I removed the 50,000 alumni from a sentence in the lede as awkward. Perhaps it can be mentioned later in the lede, with a sentence talking about notable alumni?
- I am surprised by the number of citations in the lede. MOS:LEDECITE says there should be a balance in number of citations in the lede verses repeating citations that are stated later in the body. Perhaps most of these can be removed?
- "Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder in the 1960s, A.M.C. desegregated" This is the first time A.M.C. is used to refer to the university, and there is no explanation that says this acronym is for the university. I suggest that this be stated earlier in the article.
Brings me to "Beginning years". I will continue more comments later. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- First one is fine by me! :-)
- Not my preference either. All of these points are well referenced in the body of the article, but there are some that feel having the references in both places is a better placement. That's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I can see both points, but even in this, there are claims that portions are "unreferenced" when indeed they are and in the manner WP:MOS dictates. I'd rather have extra references than too few (too few = "well, it's unreferenced! I'll just delete it!").
- If the references are removed, and someone tries to remove the information from the lede for "uncited claims" I will support their reinstatement. Just ensure that the information is referenced in the body. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your citation also says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...should be supported by an inline citation...including within the lead." I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but this phraseology basically means everything can be challenged and everything needs a citation. I agree that isn't the intent, but everything in the lead with a citation is there because someone challenged it. Given the dichotomy of this situation, there is no solution that will appeal to all readers. I'm going to err on the side of those who want citations. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed
- I undid part of your changes. I re-added the quote about the Morrill Act purpose. This was a major point of contention in the early days of the school. Profs started teaching a "classical education" and cadets got bored. This led to a decline in the population and it was only saved by Lawrence Sullivan Ross, a former governor of Texas, who saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum (the folks at our rival school say that they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations). Including that quote gives context for why there is such a focus on Ag and Engineering. I also re-added the part about the school starting on 2 Oct...and then 4 Oct...There is reasonable debate about the "first day". Including both dates with what happened bridged a divide between multiple contributors. I'm fine with the rest of the changes, in fact, I thank you! Great updates!Buffs (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Buffs:, I responded under your bullet points above so it is easier to track conversations. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also see that there are still comments ongoing above. I don't want to make this review too hectic, so please ping me when the above reviewers are complete with their assessment and I will continue with mine. You can also ping me if you need an outside opinion on something. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720 Please simply add them here and I will address as-able. This is nothing close to being overwhelming. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Rugby World Cup
- Notified: WikiProject Rugby union
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced text and tables scattered throughout, areas which have not been kept up to date, and short paragraphs and proseline in several sections. I also have concerns about the depth of coverage, the article is quite short and some subsections are tables without any explanatory or contextual text. CMD (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I see CUA 27 has been working on this some. CUA 27, do you feel like you'll be able to address these points? Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I've made some improvements, and there is still room for improvement, but I don't think I'll be able to spend much time on this article over the next few weeks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Shadow of the Colossus
- Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification
I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with Hog Farm's Talk:Shadow of the Colossus#WP:URFA/2020 source assessment, though I'd give some leniency to Kotaku. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 05:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC) - Here are some RS that could and probably should be cited, but aren't:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] (just found them in a quick Google Scholar search) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just gonna copy the list from talkpage here for convenience:
A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.
Dubious
- TrustedReviews
- Press Start Online
- The Gaming Intelligence Agency
- Insert Credit (no consensus)
- Cane and Rinse
- Zone of the Gamers
- GameChew
- Find Articles
- ControllerFreaks
- Kikizo (no consensus)
- Thunderbolt (no consensus)
- Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
- Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
- HeyUGuys
Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced
- Neoseeker
- Nintendo Everything
- Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku). Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re-listing of ones that may need replacing
So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list
- Zone of the Gamers
- GameChew
So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I can take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts on the article at present:
- There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made Ico WP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
- A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
- The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
- More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
- The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
- Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
- References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.
Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Punk rock
- Notified: Guerillero (diff), Finnusertop (diff), Ceoil (diff), Tony1 (diff), SandyGeorgia (diff), WikiProject Music (diff), WikiProject Punk music (diff), WikiProject Rock music (diff)
Fourteen years after the first FAR and eighteen years after the article's first FA promotion, article issues were initially raised three months ago (Talk:Punk rock#Article issues). The issues include amount of non-free content (some of which were removed/orphaned since the discussion started), lengthiness of the article, over-detailing, and reliability of sources, those of which would affect the article's compliance with WP:FACR, like #3 (length) and #4 (media). Since the discussion, major edits have been made.
I'm creating this subpage because we want to be sure whether changes made within months of the initial discussion improved or worsened the article quality. Also, this subpage should receive attention from others wanting to improve the article. Whether to keep the article's FA status or delist it can wait for a while. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. Dunno. The article is impeccably sourced, but there is a strong editorial POV that calls to mind some of User:Geogre's best work. My suspicion is that the article needs a lot more trimming than it does addition, so hopeful that this can be saved. For the record, was involved in the earlier FAR, and was somewhat friendly with User:DCGeist, the main editor after that, who was widely regarded for his
(if verbose)writing style, and banned for socking rather than sourcing issues. Overall this is doable. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- I see now that the problems came after Geist. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further, I think George Ho is right in bring this here, for sure the page needs work, I think his rationales for noming are to the point and bang on, so thanks for pushing GH. Also, I'm planning a two week or so break from the wiki madhouse, but keen to look back in here after that. Nikki, once again you might have to be patient. My impression is that most of the work will be toning down the language, and making it less excitable. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you both and I look forward to being able to !vote keep after we do an overhaul --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments
- tense, pace and tone are major issues here...eg By 1996, genre acts such as Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake were being signed to major labels
- every general statement on the music and subculture is followed by multiple examples, and too much detail on the particular band (what US city, who wtrote the song, who produced, bla). eg, picked this random sentence "Somewhere in between, pop punk groups created blends like that of the ideal record, as defined by Mekons cofounder Kevin Lycett: "a cross between Abba and the Sex Pistols".[202] A range of other styles emerged, many of them fusions with long-established genres. The Clash album London Calling, released in December 1979, exemplified the breadth of classic punk's legacy. Combining punk rock with reggae, ska, R&B, and rockabilly, it went on to be acclaimed as one of the best rock records ever.[203] At the same time, as observed by Flipper singer Bruce Loose..." Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Update in 2 days, but not hopeful. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- A number of these key rock music articles fail to define what the music style is. These articles talk about the genre's history, and provide lists of bands that are believed by some writers to be influential, and their equipment, and the bands in other genres that they latter had an impact on. The Grunge article recently lost its FA status, and Punk appears to be going the same way for similar reasons. From the third sentence of the Punk Rock article, perhaps someone might explain to the reading public just what "hard-edged melodies and singing styles" actually means. William Harris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: After a quick skim, I think this article is salvagable. I think this article needs a trim, and some sections need to be expanded upon, merged or deleted (like "Synth-punk") I am not an expert, so I have some questions outlined below and I am sorry if they sound stupid and ill-informed. Please respond under the bullet point of the question you are answering in order to keep the conversation organised:
- The early history and second wave sections focus on the English-speaking world. Is there history to note in other places (maybe Germany?)
- Early history in North America seems to just be New York. Is that the only place in NA that punk was happening at this time?
- Would it be worth spinning off parts of the history section, like second-wave punk?
- In "1979–1984: Schism and diversification" it outlines how punk split off into sub-genres. One of the sections is called "Oi!", which is about an album label and not a genre, AFAIK. Should this label have their own section here?
- Why is revival and later success put after the legacy section?
- What are the developments of punk-rock in the 21st century? There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on that time period.
- Those are my thoughts. Please ping if you need a follow-up. I am happy to do a non-expert copyedit and review when the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Lee Smith (baseball)
- Notified: Wknight94, Nishkid64, MisfitToys, WP Chicago, WP Biography, WP Baseball, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP College basketball, Noticed in early April
This 2007 promotion (and BLP article) isn't quite to the up modern FA sourcing standards. There's some uncited text throughout, as well as places where the cited sources don't support the text. For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. And for "Smith compiled his worst ERA of the decade—although he saved more than 30 games for the first time in his career. In Game 2 of the NL Championship Series, Smith recorded two outs for the save to give Chicago a 2–0 lead in the best-of-five series against the San Diego Padres, putting them one win away from the World Series", only the first sentence is supported by the source. There are likely more issues with that throughout the article. Significant sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall.
is quite alarming, especially if said source explicitly refutes such assertions (I haven't checked); while the assertions are probably not controversial enough to trip BLP alarms, such poor sourcing, and especially false information if present, is incompatible with Featured Article status. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)- Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertions are accurate, although rather spurious points to make, IMO. From the Retrosheet career history of Smith here we can see a) in "Batting Record" the first hit of his career came in 1982, and b) in "Pitching Record" the last start of his career also came in 1982. Drilling into his 1982 batting record (here) and 1982 pitching record (here) confirms that both events (first hit and final start) came in the game of July 5 against Atlanta (boxscore here). That said, a passing mention that Smith's first major league hit was a home run (which likely was covered in contemporary news reports) would suffice, IMO. I should be able to source that via newspapers.com and update the passage in the next day or so. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article has multiple NPOV(For instance- 'pitched fantastically'. Please define fantastically), OR('He finished the season with 37 saves and a 3.47 ERA, which was more than a point higher than the league average' This isn't supported by the inline citation and I doubt the league ERA was 2.47 that year), and not referenced (For instance- "For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival." or "His ERA was nearly as high as the league average, his strikeout rate was the lowest in 15 years,") issues. Not one or two. A half a dozen at least and with me only checking bits of the article. The article needs cleanup not Featured Article status....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: - According to B-Ref, AL ERA for 1995 was 4.71 and the MLB average ERA for same season was 4.45. So it's unclear what's going on here - may be an error for lower and original research comparing against the AL average for said year, or who knows what original research happened here. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- What would make sense is: Smith's ERA was 3.47, which was slightly more than a run better that the AL average of 4.71. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have updated accordingly, along with an added source for that season's league average (AL). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: - According to B-Ref, AL ERA for 1995 was 4.71 and the MLB average ERA for same season was 4.45. So it's unclear what's going on here - may be an error for lower and original research comparing against the AL average for said year, or who knows what original research happened here. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: Dmoore5556 has been working on the article. Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a few items on 29 May that caught my eye
, but I'm not actively working on the article at this point. As noted above, there are some sourcing and NPOV issues ("pitched fantastically" is egregious enough that I'm happy to remove that now). I'm a bit unsure of context here—is there an ongoing effort to revise prior FA articles to meet newer/current standards, or ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)- Replied on Dmoore5556's talk. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Hog Farm. I'll work on the article further, as time permits. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Replied on Dmoore5556's talk. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cleaned up a few items on 29 May that caught my eye
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Dmoore5556 has been working on this; it looks like they've gotten a decent chunk of the Chicago Cubs section cleaned up. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm – yes, I've made it through the section covering his tenure with the Cubs, adding sourcing and copyediting per. I haven't done the post-Cubs sections yet, but I plan to update those in coming days. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hog Farm – now updated though his tenure with the Red Sox; more to follow. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dmoore5556 has been working on this; it looks like they've gotten a decent chunk of the Chicago Cubs section cleaned up. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I still see some unsourced statements and paragraphs, and I would like to fix some formatting. Dmoore5556 are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Z1720, yes I am still working on this; I'm going through his career chronologically and I've completed 1980 through 1991 so far. Dmoore5556 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Toronto Raptors
- Notified: Chensiyuan, Johnny Au, Ergotelis123, Charlesaaronthompson, WP NBA, WP Canada, WP Sports, WP Basketball, 2021-04-06
This 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since, and has accumulated uncited text and other issues, which isn't surprising, since the team has 6 division titles and a NBA championship since then. There's also some reference formatting issues, and dated text such as "Their television ratings, however, are considerably lower than other more established Toronto sports teams and most other sporting events aired on Canadian television" which is dated to a source from before the team went on the nice run mentioned above, so may no longer be accurate. Given that the team's best history of success is from after the last FA review, this probably needs a significant work-through. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC nothing is happening. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)striking out for now since it appears things are happening. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)- Comment: The article has much less activity from the regulars than when it became an FA, despite the fact that it won the NBA Championship since then. I mainly do maintenance on the Toronto Raptors article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Sabbatino, Amchow78, Leventio, and Bagumba for more input. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly has issues, but it can be fixed up given a few days. I can probably help with some of the citation issues in the article later tonight or tomorrow. Leventio (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's still being cleaned up, mainly by Leventio. There really isn't much of a deadline. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC alright you have had almost an entire month now to clean it up and browsing the article, I still see several unsourced paragraphs. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Alright, I'm fine with that too. As such, I will strike my move to FARC once again. Link20XX (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- Stay in FAR - I'm fine with this staying in FAR for now, since active work is still occurring. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Article hasn't had any citations added to it since May 27. Can you reconsider? Link20XX (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnny Au and Leventio: - Could we get an update on how this is progressing? Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I somewhat got caught up with other articles and work so I somewhat forgot about this. I fixed up some of the citations, though a large number of issues remain. I can continue to fix them up at a somewhat slowed pace. However in saying that, I'm unfamiliar with the FAR process (never participated in one)... So if there are constraints on time that limits how long the FAR can go for, I'd feel inclined to not hold the process back and agree with the article's move to FARC (unless theres another set of hands that can correct the issues quickly... many of the issues are honestly easy enough of a fix, just tedious). Leventio (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Leventio: - The only real time constraints for FAR is that the article should generally be getting fairly frequent work at FAR. If it's going to be October or later before this can get tuned up, it may be worth considering if its better to let it go now, and then work it back up to FAC-able state. The goal is for FAR to be an improvement process and to only be a delisting process as a last resort. So I guess it all comes down to time frame. If August or early September is when the work will be mostly done, then this should probably be kept here; if it's gonna be a longer time, it may be best to not keep the article in limbo. I'll support whichever route you think is best for this article. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I could probably finish fixing up the citation issues by late-August if no one else objects to leaving this up in FAR until than. Leventio (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I at least have no objection to that. I'd rather see stuff kept than delisted. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I could try to at least give some sources for the section named "Pandemic-shortened seasons and Tampa relocation." Other than that the remainder might be a challenge since I have never done Featured Articles. I've done 43 Featured lists and rescued one from demotion, but I have not done articles.
- I at least have no objection to that. I'd rather see stuff kept than delisted. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I could probably finish fixing up the citation issues by late-August if no one else objects to leaving this up in FAR until than. Leventio (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Leventio: - The only real time constraints for FAR is that the article should generally be getting fairly frequent work at FAR. If it's going to be October or later before this can get tuned up, it may be worth considering if its better to let it go now, and then work it back up to FAC-able state. The goal is for FAR to be an improvement process and to only be a delisting process as a last resort. So I guess it all comes down to time frame. If August or early September is when the work will be mostly done, then this should probably be kept here; if it's gonna be a longer time, it may be best to not keep the article in limbo. I'll support whichever route you think is best for this article. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I somewhat got caught up with other articles and work so I somewhat forgot about this. I fixed up some of the citations, though a large number of issues remain. I can continue to fix them up at a somewhat slowed pace. However in saying that, I'm unfamiliar with the FAR process (never participated in one)... So if there are constraints on time that limits how long the FAR can go for, I'd feel inclined to not hold the process back and agree with the article's move to FARC (unless theres another set of hands that can correct the issues quickly... many of the issues are honestly easy enough of a fix, just tedious). Leventio (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnny Au and Leventio: - Could we get an update on how this is progressing? Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Article hasn't had any citations added to it since May 27. Can you reconsider? Link20XX (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- All of those would be great. I would love to see the Raptors remain an FA, especially given that it won the NBA championship in 2019, and by extension, the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I could actually help a little bit more on this article regarding adding citations as soon as I wrap up on my FLCs for the 93rd Academy Awards and the 56th Academy Awards. I do not plan to nominate any further lists for featured list promotion at least until December 12 when I plan to submit the accolades page of Dunkirk for FLC.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
History of timekeeping devices
- Notified: Keilana, Bibliomaniac15, Anonymous Dissident, Grimhelm, AndonicO, Zginder, Phoenix-wiki, WikiProject Time, WikiProject History of Science, talk page diff March 27
I am nominating this 2008 featured article for review because of the unaddressed concerns from RetiredDuke last month: lede that is too long, multiple talk page messages that are unanswered about inaccuracies, unsourced text and failed verification. While impressive, this will need a lot of careful work to bring back up to FA level. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for the notification but I am no longer active on Wikipedia and unfortunately I won't have time to bring the article back up to FA standards. My apologies! · Andonic contact 04:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just wanted to leave a message here. I can take a look next week and see what I can do. Unfortunately, it's been 13 years since we collaborated on this project, and we split up our work on the different sections (I worked on the ancient civilization section), so I am honestly not very familiar with much of the content anymore. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- All improvements are welcome, even if the star cannot be saved! FemkeMilene (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Femkemilene, I'll put some work into fixing the issues already mentioned, as well as the MOS issues that need to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- All improvements are welcome, even if the star cannot be saved! FemkeMilene (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene: Hi! I'll try to take a look at it but my time is quite limited these days. I'll do my best. Keilana (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: loads of editing going on. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold lots of progress in this article, already looks much better. Amitchell125 is a FA regular and editing looks steady and promising. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Update: progress still ongoing. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Paused here to help out on the GAN backlog drive, will return soon to tackle the 18th century some more. Amitchell125 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Back on to it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Talk page page comments now addressed. Now on the development of the watch in 20th century. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Back on to it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Vijayanagara Empire
- Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history, WP Karanatak, WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20
I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of
Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital
in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)- I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
- For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
- Source:FA
- "Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
- I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
- Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
- "Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
- Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
- "There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
- Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by Tayi Arajakate. Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have tred to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- *Citations needed
MOS:SANDWICH- Check punctuation on MOS:CAPTIONS
- I still had to correct these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have fixed some of the dash problems; please be aware of the difference between hyphens and WP:DASHes.
- MOS:SAID (notes that ... ).
- Still present, "Vanina notes that within the warrior Kshatriya class ... "
- There are considerable duplicate links: you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review if all are necessary.
There are HarvRef errors.
Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will start working on this from this weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as [[Sayana|Sayanacharya]], yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Continuing
- Faulty endashes, need to be corrected througout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1023537622&oldid=1023537354
- Faulty p vs. pp, please check throughout https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1023537354
- Further reading should be alphabetical; are all of those necessary, and should some of them be used as sources? (FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so Further reading should provide info that cannot be incorporated into the article.)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment after a quick skim, I think this article is close to "Keep" status, but there haven't been substantial edits since mid-May and Nikkimaria's call for an update was unanswered. Some of my concerns include a "Further Reading" section that should be incorporated into the article for comprehensiveness, the history section should have subheadings, and the Alternate Name section is very short. If editors are still working on this article, please comment below and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982) [1921] is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- My opinion on "Further reading" sections in featured articles is that they should be rarely used; if the source isn't good enough to be included as a reference, it shouldn't be recommended to readers as a place to get further information. Based on your analysis Chipmunkdavis, I would support deleting them. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982) [1921] is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Z1720
Consider me a non-expert. I conducted a copyedit of the article, so please review my edits to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.
- It is unusual for an article to have citations in the lede. Are they necessary? Since info in the lede is expected to also be in the body of the article, we can assume that the information will be cited in the body of the article.
- "the empire's power and wealth." Can this power and wealth be described a little bit? For example, were they powerful? How wealthy were they?
- "literature to reach new heights in" Can we describe this a little more? This also sounds like an idiom.
- The "Alternate name" section is really short. Can this be combined with an "Etomology" section explaining the origin of the empire's name?
- The "History" section should be broken up with subheadings
- "Differing theories have been proposed regarding the origins of the Vijayanagara empire. Historians propose two theories." Are there just two theories, or a variety of theories? One of these sentences can be removed.
- "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras, B.A. Saletore, G.S. Gai, William Coelho and Kamath in (Kamath 2001, pp. 157–160)" why is it important to name these people who support this theory, especially when some of them don't have wikipages and are possibly not notable? This origin story has four references, one of which is this footnote, which seems like WP:OVERCITE.
- "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." What information was uncovered in this information? Either delete as it is not needed, or put it at the beginning of a paragraph that describes how we know information about the empire.
- "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE" I am very confused by the origin story of the empire. Is everything above this line chronological? From my perspective, the first paragraph explains two origin stories, the second paragraph then talks about how the regions in the empire were raided by Muslims in the north, which I think happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? Then the third paragraph explains the Kampili empire, which I also assume happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? This should be rearranged so that it is chronological.
I'm going to pause there, because I think this is a lot to work on. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the citations, such as their pastoral origin and extent of empire were added after some edit warring, though I can't recall when exactly. Removed a couple of citations.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The 'empires power and wealth' has been described succinctly in later sections such as the "History" and "Economy" sections. All that has been merely summarized in the lead with a single phrase. Is there any need to describe that in the lead in detail?Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have extended an existing line to describe its territorial reach. Its wealth is not a single physical quantity such as gems and precious stones but rather its vibrant economy which lead to construction of numerous fortifications, temples and monuments across south India and patronage to fine arts etc, none of which would have been possible without sufficient wealth. This is already explained in the last couple of lines of the 'History' section and in more detail in the economy, literature and architecture section.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Explained "fine arts and literature reached new heights" by naming specific (but not exhaustive) list of new genres of literature that gained popularity in this period. "..... such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, novel, musicology, historical and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form". To get a full idea of all this one has to dwell on sub-articles listed such as Vijayanagara literature in Kannada (also a FA) Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- This list is a great addition. Can we change "novel" to "fiction" and "historical" to "historiography"? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- This list is a great addition. Can we change "novel" to "fiction" and "historical" to "historiography"? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras..." All historians cited here are notable. Just because they don't have wiki pages as yet does not mean they are not notable. Their names have been moved into footnotes precisely to ensure there names don't clog up the article. Only those readers who are really interested can refer to the inline citation and do further research if they want to. Just my opinion.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Added few more links for notable historians. Their names are very important because this is by far the most contentious issue for those who have been following this article over the years.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- "The "Alternate name" section.." Not sure how to handle this right now but the fact is in most books I have read on Vijayanagara empire, the authors use the terms "Karnata empire" or "Karnataka empire" along side its popular modern name. I have touched upon this in the section on "epigraphy".Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The "History" section should be broken..." Please go ahead and split it. We can then make adjustments if necessary.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Moved the main templates at the top to their subsections, combined "Origins" with "Muslim invasion" into a new section called "Background and origin theories" (to put the information chronologically and avoid a one-paragraph section) Changed "Birth of an empire" to "Early years" (as the section starts with the empire having already been formed, so it is not about its birth per se), Changed "Empire at it's peak" to "Empire's peak" for succinctness. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era..". I moved this line to the end of the "history" section. Is that okay?Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The issue I raised above, of pipelinks and inconsistent naming, remains in the article. I would suggest it is addressing it would help Z1720 in their reading. CMD (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Continuing copyedit:
- I changed "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE." to "The Vijayanagara Kingdom was founded as a successor to the Kampili Kingdom in 1336 CE" as the former was using an MOS:IDIOM. Can you check to ensure the new sentence is verified by the source, and if not change it to more accurate information?
- Rectified with citation.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Where does the Battle of Raichur fit into the empire's history, and can its hatnote be moved to the top of its section?
- Belongs to 1520 war of King Krishnadevaraya with the Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1520 A.D.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "("master of the eastern and western seas")" What language is this translated from, and can it be put as a note?
- The source must be an epigraph and the language is Sanskrit.Purva-east, Paschima-west, Samudra-ocean/sea,Dishavara-master of. Not sure how to put it in a note. Do you mean citation footnote?Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- One option is to use Template:Efn
- The source must be an epigraph and the language is Sanskrit.Purva-east, Paschima-west, Samudra-ocean/sea,Dishavara-master of. Not sure how to put it in a note. Do you mean citation footnote?Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Italian traveler Niccolò de' Conti wrote of him as the most powerful ruler of India." This is great information for Deva Raya I's article, but I don't think its necessary for this article and can be deleted.
- Deleted this line.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- ", such as in 1436 when Sultan Ahmed I launched a war to collect the unpaid tribute." I don't think we need to include this example of a tribute war, as it is not actually linking to the war and its unclear why this war is highlighted while others are not.
- Removed part of that line.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Deva Raya II (called Gajabetekara)" Who called him this?
- Epigraphs mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Epigraphs mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "By 1436 the rebellious chiefs of Kondavidu and the Velama rulers were successfully dealt with." How were they "dealt with"? What was the consequence of their rebellion?
- The rebelling chiefs were defeated and made to accept Vijayanagara over lordship.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The rebelling chiefs were defeated and made to accept Vijayanagara over lordship.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Contemporary Persian ambassador Abdur Razzak attributes" Does Abdur Razzak have a wikipage?
- Yes. Abd al-Razzaq Samarqandi. Added link.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "After a few years of tranquility, wars broke out with the Bahamani Sultanate in 1443." What was the result of this war?
- Some victories and some defeats in a series of low intensity wars, mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some victories and some defeats in a series of low intensity wars, mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "He later defeated Bahmani forces and recovered most of the empire's earlier losses." Is there more information on this? A battle perhaps?
- Usually if there is a battle of attrition, such a situation one cant expect a specific instance to be gloried.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused, do you mean that this is not notable enough to have more info in the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well there was one Hindu Kingdom and five Sultanates that were vying for control over the entire Deccan for about 250 years. There were many battles won and lost on both sides, some more important and some not so, based on turning points in history. Its unrealistic to go into details of all battles.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- In most cases I have updated the info into the article based on each of your questions and concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused, do you mean that this is not notable enough to have more info in the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Usually if there is a battle of attrition, such a situation one cant expect a specific instance to be gloried.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pause there, but so far I am deleting lots of editorializing statements like "astute general", "his able governor" and wikilinking names. Can someone readthrough the whole article and remove editorializing statements like these and help with the wikilinking? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I realized that my comments are going to be numerous. In an effort to keep this FAR short, I am going to continue posting comments and questions on the article's talk page here. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I will take a closer look at your comments in the talk page over the weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have issues with the content. Please keep this FAR on hold for a few more days. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for Pied Hornbill or another editor to address concerns I left on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I addressed your concerns a few days back and left responses on the articles talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for Pied Hornbill or another editor to address concerns I left on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: work got delayed because of people's schedules but I hope it picks up this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Made updates yesterday based on comments on article talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates
Crusaders (rugby union)
- Notified: Rugby Union, WT:NZ, FAR notice March 2021
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because the history lacks info for the last 10 years comparatively, and uses sports journalese such as 'demolition'. It also lacks information on how the team came into being and the organising process for this. There is unsourced information in the statistics section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support nomination for review. The prose is clumsy in places, especially an exceptionally long sentence of 93 words about the controversy over the name following the Christchurch mosque mass shootings. Coverage of events after 2017 seems weak compared with the rest of the article, and the records don't appear to be up to date. I don't think this meets the high standards currently expected for Featured Articles. Marshelec (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- To add to my previous comments, I find that there is content in the article that is too much like newspaper reporting of sports eg "The Crusaders managed to salvage some pride by narrowing the loss to a 47–38 finish." In places, the tone does not seem to meet the standards of WP:TONE. Another concern is that the lead is really hard work. The lead should be easy to read, and should encourage readers to follow on and read the main content of the article. My view is that there is too much detail in the lead, too many links, and not enough compelling story. The article is also quite long. There are long sections of lists that interrupt the flow through the article. I wonder if many of the lists would be best removed to one or more separate list articles, or if the article content should be re-arranged to put all the lists towards the end.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support nomination for review. Rambling article, strongly in need of basic copy-editing and some sense of narrative. An example: a sequence of sentences strung together with "also": The Crusaders also hold the record for the fewest points scored in a game when they were defeated by the Highlanders 6–0 in 2009. They have also scored..." Somej (talk)
- @Marshelec and Somej: If I did a complete review of this article, would you be willing to address my concerns? Although I can fix up prose and formatting concerns, I do not know enough about this subject to address content problems. My process is to read the article and edit the problems as I see them; if I have any questions or notice a large concern, I will post below and ask that a more knowledgeable editor make the appropriate changes (or respond with why it needs to remain as-is, if appropriate). This process would continue until I finish my review or think the article is too far away from the FA criteria to fix. Of course, others can join this process, too, as the more people helping to fix up the article, the better. Would you be interested in helping with the review? Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have the necessary subject matter expertise about Rugby Union to do much more than comment on prose and readability in this article. However, I do think that standards for Featured Articles are worth upholding. If another editor is willing to undertake a comprehensive copy edit and rework throughout the article, I would be willing to provide acknowledgement and constructive feedback. However, I am not the right person to fill in gaps in content. Overall, I think that proceeding to a formal review is probably the best outcome for this article.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Marshelec and Somej: If I did a complete review of this article, would you be willing to address my concerns? Although I can fix up prose and formatting concerns, I do not know enough about this subject to address content problems. My process is to read the article and edit the problems as I see them; if I have any questions or notice a large concern, I will post below and ask that a more knowledgeable editor make the appropriate changes (or respond with why it needs to remain as-is, if appropriate). This process would continue until I finish my review or think the article is too far away from the FA criteria to fix. Of course, others can join this process, too, as the more people helping to fix up the article, the better. Would you be interested in helping with the review? Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support nomination for review. Rambling article, strongly in need of basic copy-editing and some sense of narrative. An example: a sequence of sentences strung together with "also": The Crusaders also hold the record for the fewest points scored in a game when they were defeated by the Highlanders 6–0 in 2009. They have also scored..." Somej (talk)
- The article as is stands doesn't cover some very major racism issues. See https://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_news/MjMzODI/Opinion/Rugby,-Racism-and-Xenophobia for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and it looks like everyone agrees this needs work. Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - uncited sentences and structural problems, including the "2017-present" section which needs to be re-written into a paragraph. Minimal engagement. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include coverage, organization and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Night of the Long Knives
- Notified: Mcattell, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Politics, 30-06-2021
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sentences and paragraphs in the article, which is especially concerning because there is lots of academic literature on this subject. There are also sources that I am dubious about, including "Cook, Stan; Bender, Roger James (1994)." (self-published?) and the von Papen memoirs, the only source used to verify von Papen's actions. The "Further reading" section should be analysed and incorporated into the article, if appropriate. I am willing to conduct a more detailed review if someone is willing to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - uncited sentences, some uncited notes. Bender appears to have written heavily on Nazi uniforms, but seems to have been mainly self-published, and we're not citing him for uniform information anyway. I'm also concerned that sourcing "On June 17, 1934, conservative demands for Hitler to act came to a head when Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen," to von Papen's memoirs is bad sourcing, as stating that this was when things came to a head is either OR or using a weak, involved, source. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
- Notified: Mtmelendez, WP Puerto Rico, noticed on June 5, 2021
Review section
I don't believe this one meets the criteria anymore. It is very statistics heavy, but all of the statistics are from 10-15 years ago. The article also claims the programs has been controversial, yet it is sourced almost entirely to US government reports, suggesting that there are additional viewpoints not represented. This one may be an accelerated candidate, as it'll need a complete rewrite and a new FAC would probably be the best way to go once this is reworked. Original nominator has not edited regularly since 2014. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, accelerated process -No human edits since last October.This needs completely overhauled to deal with both the sourcing issues and the masses of outdated statistics. With complete rewrites needed, it's probably best to run it through and send it for a new FAC once it gets rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)- @The Eloquent Peasant: I see you've been working on this; are you able to address the concerns raised above? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - I did a small amount of work, but I am not able to do more because I don't have any more current sources. I think you should proceed as you think is best. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - Update: after my comment above, I found current sources. I can try to work on it, update the statistics to make them more current and remove some of the statistics so it's not so "statistics heavy". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Eloquent Peasant, are you still planning more work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, @Nikkimaria:. I am not. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Eloquent Peasant, are you still planning more work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - Update: after my comment above, I found current sources. I can try to work on it, update the statistics to make them more current and remove some of the statistics so it's not so "statistics heavy". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hispanic Americans in World War II
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks appropriate sourcing (many sources are not RS), POV due to boosterism and out of context for focusing on profiles of successful soldiers instead of a holistic picture Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as is - There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic-American contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writing such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope will continue to deserve FA status. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Marine 69-71: We aren't deleting the article, just discussing if it meets the FA criteria --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Review - at minimum the sourcing. I've come across issues with use of RS in other articles like this (Military history of Puerto Rico being one), and a quick look at this one shows similar challenges (a Yahoo groups list being used as a source, for one example). I agree the subject is of value, but that value is undermined by the use of non-RS and potential POV issues. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I did some work on this based on the comments on the article's talk page. You can review here. One challenge with this article, as with some others, is you have to go to other Wiki pages to find the sourcing for sections that seem to have been copy and pasted, and often the sourcing on those pages is poor. The amount of work involved is higher than it might at first appear. Intothatdarkness 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comments: I have done some minor editing, but am unable to address the main concerns, sorry. These are my edits: [35]. I don't believe I will be able to do much more due to work commitments. Apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I guess my primary concern here is that this seems to be more of a collection of anecdotal stories in places, rather than a unified topic. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but I've also discovered in many of these articles (both the main ones and often the linked individuals) that the sourcing is often suspect. You can't really go after one without looking at the other. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sourcing does need some work. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to spot check, but the following sources probably aren't high-quality RS:
- The (now broken-linked) Yahoo Groups page
- Not familiar with Aerofiles, but have some doubts about this one
- A World To Win describes itself as A World to Win is an international revolutionary group that is opposed to the capitalist political and economic system globally. We work with others to develop visions and strategies that can take humanity beyond capitalism. That's not a good source for biographical information about Manuel Llopis
- ntlworld.com is someone's personal website
- What is valorosos.com?
- What makes neta.com relaible?
- What's motorbooks.com?
- The reliability of biography.com was hotly debated at RSN in 2018. If it engeders that much debate about relaibility, should we be using this in a FA? I'm not convinced we should.
- What makes designshare.com a reliable source
And there's a couple other marginal ones I just didn't get around to bringing up. This needs considerable sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've encountered that valorosos.com site on other articles like this one, and it's mainly a personal research site as far as I can tell. However, it is often possible to replace it (so long as it's information relating to the 65th Infantry Regiment) with the Center of Military history publication listed in the 'Further Reading' section (Honor and Fidelity: The 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea). I discovered this while trying to do similar work on the Military History of Puerto Rico article mentioned earlier. I also discovered with that article (and many of the associated ones relating to individuals) that cleaning these up is a major undertaking. You pretty much have to check every source, as things are often misattributed or pulled out of thin air. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I don't know at this point. Some are, but given the methodology used with this article pretty much every source has to be checked and reviewed both for RS status AND to make sure what's said in the article actually exists in the cited source. I hate to say it, but I've found instances where that is not the case. I think it might be better served moving to FARC. It suffers from the same issues found in Military history of Puerto Rico, and that had to move from FAR to FARC. Just my $.02 having worked on some of these and the linked articles (which often need to be reviewed at the same time for the same issues). Intothatdarkness 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, I guess. Needs a top-to-bottom sourcing check, and I still have questions about the scope with sections being more anecdotal stories than a unified topic. This would probably benefit more from work outside of the FAR constraints and then a new FAC once ready. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC: When a reviewer working on the article suggests moving it to FARC, I tend to defer to their judgment. I am concerned that Intothatdarkness has found several instances where the article's prose is unverified by the sources they are cited to and this needs to be actively checked by editors with experience in this field. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Oldham
- Notified: Jza84, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, WikiProject UK geography, 2018-09-30, 2021-06-11
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised in 2018, which I do not think were resolved. Concerns included that the information was not updated and short paragraphs added after the FAC. I am also concerned with unsourced statements (including a paragraph in the Economy section) and the possible inclusion of non-notable information. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since then it has grown from 41kB prose with 13kB of references, to 49kB prose with 22kB of refs. PamD 12:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- And page statistics show that almost half the total edits were done by Jza84, who appears not to have edited since 2015. PamD 12:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- PamD are you interested in bringing this back to FA standards? If so, please ping me when it is ready for another review. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have no experience of FA or FAR, so probably couldn't do it unless other editors were willing to help. What's the procedure from this point? I've addressed some unsourced paras on sport though not that big one about football in the economics section. Are there other specific points which need addressing? (Beyond the Demography section which clearly needs work.) PamD 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Forgot to ping. PamD 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PamD: I am not a FAR co-ordinator, so please correct me if I get this wrong. At this point in the process, reviewers highlight their concerns with the article. Hopefully, editors will fix the concerns and bring the article back to FA standards. If you are willing to fix the article, I am willing to review it by posting questions or comments either here or on the article's talk page. After a quick skim of the article, I notice that the history section does not have post-2002 events, that paragraph in the economy section needs citations (or to be removed) and the "Notable people" sections needs more citations or for the references to be placed at the end of the sentence if it verifies the information. There are still short paragraphs throughout the article that I think can be better integrated into its previous or subsequent prose. Once the above is complete I will conduct a more thorough review. I also noticed some WP:PROMO language in my skim, which I can highlight further (or fix) in an in-depth review later. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- PamD are you interested in bringing this back to FA standards? If so, please ping me when it is ready for another review. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC: PamD did some excellent work on the article, but uncited text still remains and they are not continuing improvements, per above. Minimal edits to the article since mid-July. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Karmichael Hunt
- Notified: User talk:SpecialWindler, User talk:rulesfan, WT:BIOG, Rugby league, Australian noticeboard, Rugby union, AFL project, New Zealand board talk page notification from April 2021
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because many problems have crept into this FA since it was promoted in 2007 when standards were much lower and also because at the time the subject had been a pro sportsperson for about 2 years and since then about 85% of his career has passed and he has jumped around into different sports (to AFL, to rugby union and back to the original sport rugby league) and those parts are not covered in as much depth and these parts have been added in a disjointed way, so there is more depth on the early career even though he also reached international level at rugby union. Further, the context is which he tried to change sports is not really explained properly (ie $$ because an established international player would not switch to a domestic-only sport that they are not familiar with except that the local sport pays much more $ and deliberately paid him as one of the best in the league as a publicity stunt even though he has no qualifications and obviously they switched for $$) and later when he switched back it is not explained why he did so. Also the bio is split up in sports formats, and this might not be the best given that he went RL -> RU -> AFL -> RU -> RL and often there is no explanation of the rationale for transition. Also there is no section on playing style, which is not really even explained at all for RU and changes in playing style/positions etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note also that RetiredDuke (talk · contribs) pointed out other structural and proportioning issues regarding the lead and personal life in the earlier notice Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and definite issues. This has probably the most confusing structure I've seen in a while. It just bounces around between different times, and there's no real connecting between the various subjects. There's a section titled 2008 Rugby League World Cup and beyond that doesn't contain anything from post-2009. The New South Wales Waratahs (2019-2020) section just consists of a single sentence saying that he signed a contract. What happened to him with the NSW club? It's unclear what exactly "In Cairns, Hunt had a breakthrough game against the Bendigo Bombers showing dramatic improvement" as its vague what "breakthrough game" and "dramatic performance" mean. "Hunt's coaching staff have speculated him to make an experimental shift into the midfield" - why is something from 2010 referred to as "have"? This article is both too thin for later events, and generally lacks cohesion throughout. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Minimal engagement. The article's structure is messy, as pointed out by Hog Farm, and there are numerous short paragraphs that need to be merged together or deleted. This article needs a complete rewrite to become chronological. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delist. Unsourced statements. There's also no mention anywhere in the article as far as I can see of his girlfriends or wife, which raises comprehensiveness concerns. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - newer events are not fully discussed, and the structure is extremely convoluted. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delist This article was promoted in 2007, when the young man was just in his third year as a professional player... and then he proceeded to have the most confusing sports career I've ever seen. He kept changing between football codes and leagues, and the article does not do a good job displaying all the info in a clear way. There's also plenty of unsourced content in here. Prime example of why it isn't ideal to invest on a FA on a living person that is just starting off their career. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Globular cluster
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fully agreed (@Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comments from Graeme Bartlett
- Images need to have alt= text to improve accessibility.
- Done. A little repetitive, I'm afraid, but then one glibular cluster looks a lot like another to the average reader. Maybe someone with more imagination could take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Non-standard punctuation in use: “”
- Done. Wretchskull (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Awkward wording: "contains an unusual number of a type of star" (unusual number could be 0, 999, 1234, large - be specific)
- I was expecting to see a diagram of where globular clusters are in a galaxy, but there is none there. This could be in #Orbits section
- That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- If we add a diagram like one of these, it should go next to the fifth paragraph in the observation history section, which describes the distribution of globular clusters in the Milky Way and its historical importance in demonstrating that the Sun is not in the middle of the Milky Way. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- This one? Artist's conception and it says so, labels the Sun and M4, but also has some other text that is a little dated. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- If we could get the underlying image, that would be great. It's definitely an artist's conception of the Milky Way (can't have a real outside image that includes the Sun!) but may be real (modulo distance uncertainties) positions of globular clusters; the caption isn't clear about that. (That's my issue with the other one too.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- One reference (94) uses authors list with non-standard affilliations.
- Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- None of the authors appear to be linked in references. I know at least one of these is famous enough, and I expect several have articles. Some journals should also be linked in references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Femke
I've looked through the article in search of sentences I believe need updating, and found a few.
- A total of 152 globular clusters have now been discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, out of an estimated total of 180 ± 20 (source 1992)
- Blue stragglers are mentioned in two different locations. Is there a problem with structure?
- This seems to be ok. Both locations, plus the image caption, appear to be sensible to mention this type of star. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- However, a possible exception is when strong tidal interactions with other large masses result in the dispersal of the stars.
- However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse". In this type of cluster, the luminosity continues to increase steadily all the way to the core region
- A 2008 study by John Fregeau. Is this now common knowledge? If so, modren source + rephrase in wikivoice?
- I deleted that paragraph. The paper hasn't been widely cited in the 13 years since, and it doesn't seem to be a significant change in our understanding of clusters (despite a somewhat overhyped press release resulting in some media coverage -- not uncommon), so I don't think this is really worthy of a mention, and certainly not a full paragraph. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- potential computing requirements to accurately simulate such a cluster can be enormous -> next paragraph indicated it was done in 2010, so not that enormous after all?
- I clarified that that comment refers to a low-density cluster. I also added a ref from a few weeks ago showing that we're still very much pushing compute power -- saying it was "done" is relative, since there are still lots of approximations, and we need to make fewer as time goes on. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- How these clusters are formed is not yet known (2005 source)
- How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Forbes et al reference is more about generic GCs; I added it in that context. (It is indeed a good overview; there's more from there that could be incorporated.) I added a more recent ref from the same team that originally discovered the unusual clusters with a bit more of an idea about how they form (accretion from satellites). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- In spite of the lower likelihood of giant planet formation, just such an object has been found in the globular cluster Messier 4. (2008 source). With most exoplanets being discovered in the last 10 years(?), I suspect more have been found in globular clusters. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I found a 2020 source confirming this is still the case. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update zero edits to the FAR since Mar 13, and zero edits to the article since Mar 18. @Buidhe and Femkemilene: for status check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update all the above are addressed, but more cn tags appeared, of which one still needs to be found. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia comments
- Please install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review WP:OVERLINKing; perhaps many of them can be justified, but they need to be reviewed.
- MOS:CAPTIONS, full sentences should end in puncutation, sentence fragments should not.
- Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:BADITALICS, why is this italicized ? The difference between the relative and absolute magnitude, the distance modulus,
- Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia. Considerable instances of both however and also, which don't seem to be needed.
- Reduced a lot. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why are these in External links? The first seems to contain info that should be in a comprehensive article, and the second is a general blog.
- Key stars have different birthdays The article describes how stars in globular clusters are born in several bursts, rather than all at once.
- Globular Clusters Blog News, papers and preprints on Galactic Globular Clusters
This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.
- Why are these listed as "General sources", yet not formatted as the rest of the sources? They appear here as if they want to be External links rather than sources.
- NASA Astrophysics Data System has a collection of past articles, from all major astrophysics journals and many conference proceedings. And "a collection of past articles" is non-specific; which articles are we looking at for sources? (We can't just tell our readers, well, somewhere in this collection of past articles you can find what you need to verify content in this article.)
- "Review articles", not used as citations, should be alphabetical.
- "Books", Binnie and Spitzer each used only once, so why do they require a separate section, and Heggie is not used.
- Spitzer isn't used either (a conference proceeding from the previous year is cited). I don't know this specific Spitzer book and don't have immediate access to it, but everything he wrote is brilliant, so it's easy for me to imagine that this book is worth including as a classic reference. Binney & Tremaine is a very widely-used dynamics book that is very relevant to this topic. I don't know the Heggie book, but it too looks relevant. To me, that looks like a decently-curated list of more-in-depth books for further reading, so my vote is to keep it as is. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Footnote a seems to need a citation: Omega Centauri was known in antiquity, but Halley discovered its nature as a nebula.
- That's stated in reference 10, which is right next to the footnote. (It refers to the object as having been named by Ptolemy, which is pretty direct evidence that it was known in antiquity, although in different words.) Should the reference move into the footnote? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I eventually figured out that ESO = European Southern Observatory, which is neither linked nor clarified in any citation that used the abbreviation.
- Example, this is an incomplete citation: "Ashes from the Elder Brethren". ESO. 0107. Missing date, missing access date, and tell us somewhere what ESO is. (There are others similar.)
- Similar problem here with SEDS ... what is that ?
- I have expanded the European Southern Observatory and Students for the Exploration and Development of Space acronyms in the references, used the press release templates, updated URLs and access dates where needed, and added ID numbers to releases for additional permanence. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Frommert, Hartmut (August 2007). "Milky Way Globular Clusters". SEDS. Retrieved February 26, 2008. I can't get the site to load and can't even tell what it is, or whether it is reliable.
- Patrick Moore (2005). Firefly Atlas of the Universe. Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-071-8. This is a book, requires a page number.
- This is missing author ... "Messier 13 (M13) - The Great Hercules Cluster - Universe Today". Universe Today. May 9, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
I will stop there for now; this is only a brief sampling, and the sourcing and citations here need to be cleaned up before further evaluation of the content. Please review all sources and citations for completeness. I am very skeptical that this article can retain status, and filling in the missing citations is not the same as making sure the older content is verifiable to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashill can we have an update here? You identified a recent review article by Gratton, which would be good to have included in the text. You convinced me that the science doesn't change much, so I'll be satisfied if it's not used very extensively. Can the section on orbits be expanded? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Femkemilene I incorporated the Gratton reference in a few places. I also took the opportunity to cite a bit what hasn't changed much (eg basic understanding of formation). I merged the very short orbits section into the formation section, where it puts the significance of the orbits in context. I also merged a couple see alsos into the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope to work towards the end of the FAR. So let me give another (final?) list of things I'd like to see improved.
- Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters -> uniquely in lede, and relatively old source. Lede should be a summary of the body.
- I agree that this information should be in the body of the article, along with some obvious data like the number in the Milky Way, but there doesn't seem to be a good place where it would fit. Perhaps in the observation section? A new section? 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The retrograde orbit may suggest that ω Cen is the remnant of a dwarf galaxy which was captured by the Milky Way -> is this level of uncertainty (may + suggest) still valid with modern sources?
- Still not entirely settled - added a recent paper on the subject. Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- FN41 misses author and last updated date (found http://community.dur.ac.uk/ian.smail/gcCm/gcCm_top.html)
- Not sure what this refers to; if it's footnote 41 in this version (footnote 45 in the current version), the author, date, and access date are all listed. I also added an archive-url for that one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The typical distance between stars in a globular cluster is about 1 light year,[41] but at its core, the separation is comparable to the size of the Solar System (100 to 1000 times closer than stars near the Solar System) -> I don't know how wide the solar system is, so find it difficult to understand this sentence
- Not only confusing, but wrong although it is an accurate reflection of what the reference says. I've provided a more correct reference and rewritten that sentence. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- double parentheses: (more than 25 kiloparsecs (82,000 ly) from the center)
- Globular cluster M15 may have an intermediate-mass black hole at its core. cn
- Note the characteristic "knee" in the curve at magnitude 19 -> don't speak to reader
- Text tweaked. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- The origins of these stars is still unclear, but most models suggest that these stars are the result of mass transfer in multiple star systems -> update needed.
- I#ve added a much more recent reference and rewritten that sentence, although the sentiment is still the same. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Examples of core-collapsed globular clusters include M15 and M30. -> cn
- Precise velocities were obtained for nearly 15,000 stars in this cluster -> update needed
- Sometimes the GC are referred to as M15, sometimes M 15. Consistency.
- Done. I've gone with no spaces. Messier objects are almost universally abbreviated without a space, although Simbad is one of a very few exceptions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is some dense jargon in here; I had to click out of the lead multiple times to understand the lead. Also, "While his distance estimate was in significant error (although within the same order of magnitude as the currently accepted value), it did demonstrate that the dimensions of the galaxy were much greater than had been previously thought.[c]" is not sourced; rather the footnote looks like original research without a source. That is a brief glance; I don't understand a lot of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
- What is a "stellar density"?
- Spiral galaxy is not defined, and the reader is obligated to click out to know what it is.
- Ditto for galactic halo ... the lead should be digestible to a layreader, and the layreader should not have to click out to decipher the meaning of a sentence.
- Ditto for open cluster.
- Clarified that both globular and open clusters are types of star clusters. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is the "Disk of a spiral galaxy"?
- Redundancies in this sentence ... and were formed as part of the star formation of the parent galaxy, rather than as a separate galaxy.
- The WP:LEAD must be an overview that is digestible to readers who are not well versed in astronomy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
- Great Debate (astronomy) isn't exactly about Globular clusters, but is a focal point for many of the issues around the distances and distribution of them. This paper summarises that debate and categorises the important factors together with a precis of where Shapley was right and wrong. These could support a useful expansion of the information currently in the article: the statement that Shapley gave a distance and it was too high very much over-simplifies the history. Shapley gave a great many distances to the galactic centre, ranging from close to correct to more than double. He even came late to the idea that globular clusters had an asymmetric distribution indicating a spherical system with the sun off-centre. In 1915, he dismissed it when determining the distance to M13. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that "distance estimate" sentence and footnote c are totally standard textbook statements; I added three textbook references which say the same thing in different ways at different levels. I also incorporated the Trimble paper above to be explicit about Shapley's distance estimates. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Close without FARC -- Just solved a few more prose issues myself. I'm a bit on the fence here, but this has been open for months, and would like to draw it to a close. I'm sure there is room for further improvement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 14, 2021 (UTC)
- What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Everything above has been addressed I believe. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: - Do you feel like all of your comments have been satisfactorily addressed here? I intend to make a read-through myself at some point, but would like to wait until everything outstanding is addressed for that. Hog Farm Talk 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, as stated above, the lead is not an adequate summary digestible to the layreader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Continuing ...
- why are metal rich and metal poor in quotes? See MOS:QUOTEPOV. Ditto throughout (eg, blue stragglers)
- review linking, blue stragglers is used in an image caption before it is linked in the next section.
- de-howevering may be useful ... However, the above-mentioned historic process of determining the age and distance to globular clusters is not as robust as first thought, since ... see See overuse of however and User:John/however. Ditto for also, in addition, etc ... User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
I picked the section on simulations for a prose check, as that is a topic I do understand ...
- subdividing what? An efficient method of mathematically simulating the N-body dynamics of a globular cluster is done by subdividing into small volumes and velocity ranges ...
- The simulation becomes more difficult when the effects of binaries and the interaction with external gravitation forces (such as from the Milky Way galaxy) must also be included. ... What is meant by " when ... must be included" ... why are they not always included, and why must they only sometimes be included?
- punctuation of this sentence? Over long periods of time this will result in a dissipation of the cluster, a process termed evaporation ... should that be an endash rather than a comma?
- Either this is a switch in tense or I am completely misunderstanding the meaning ... The ultimate fate of a globular cluster must be either to accrete stars at its core, causing its steady contraction,[119] or gradual shedding of stars from its outer layers.
I think this article could yet benefit from a closer prose review by non-content experts, although I believe we are on the road to a restored bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Questions from me:
- "" I've gone through several of these with responses inline, although it looks like several of the comments no longer apply as the text they refer to has been edited out. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Star clusters are often assumed to consist of stars that all formed at the same time" By whom?"observed M4 in 1764... Subsequently, Abbé Lacaille would list NGC 104, NGC 4833, M55, M69, and NGC 6397 in his 1751–1752 catalogue" How do these dates work out? Reordered the sentences to what I think was intended- "Globular" was used a handful of times—too informal? I like it occasionally for brevity but I'm not familiar with the topic.
- The lede states that "globular" is an alternative way of referring to them, although I don't actually see that usage in the text. I don't think it's too informal and think it's useful to vary the writing, and I far prefer "globular" to "GC" as a shortened form. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Both can be regarded as evidence that supermassive globular clusters are in fact the cores of dwarf galaxies that are consumed by the larger galaxies" seems redundant to what we said a section ago
- "The proportion of metals can thus be an indication of the age of a star in simple models" In simple models or in reality?
"The Dutch astronomer Pieter Oosterhoff noticed that there appear to be two populations of globular clusters" I changed this assuming there are other populations besides the Oosterhoff groups, but just wanted to make sureWas wondering whether you all thought it was Wikipedia voice to say "our" when referring to the Solar System or Milky Way. I lean toward no, but I thought I should check.
- I don't see the Solar System referred to at all. For the Solar System, "our" can resolve ambiguity between the Solar System every possible reader of Wikipedia lives in and planetary systems around other stars (which are sometimes themselves called solar systems). The Milky Way is unambiguous (but "the galaxy" isn't, so it's typically called "the Galaxy" (capital G) or "our galaxy" or "our Galaxy" to distinguish it from other galaxies), so I changed "our" to "the". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"A blue straggler is thought to be formed from the merger of two stars, possibly as a result of an encounter with a binary system" What is "encountering" the binary system? A third star?
"Holger Baumgardt and collaborators" Not sure why we're singling their name out specifically; needs more context. I replaced with "Researchers" for now"When the stars of a particular globular cluster are plotted on an H–R diagram, in many cases almost all of them fall on a relatively well-defined curve" seems to contradict "but nearly all globular clusters contain stars that formed at different times, or that have differing compositions" in the lead. Which is it?
- Both. :) I've largely rewritten the H-R diagram section per this and other comments; I hope that clears that up. There are distinct populations which formed at different times in most/all globulars, but the two times are not very far apart. You really have to be looking with the newest camera on the Hubble Space Telescope to see the difference clearly, which is now stated in the main text of the article. (An image would help, but there aren't any free ones I could find; if I have time, I may try to find the data and create one that is suitably licensed.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will edit with this in mind
- Both. :) I've largely rewritten the H-R diagram section per this and other comments; I hope that clears that up. There are distinct populations which formed at different times in most/all globulars, but the two times are not very far apart. You really have to be looking with the newest camera on the Hubble Space Telescope to see the difference clearly, which is now stated in the main text of the article. (An image would help, but there aren't any free ones I could find; if I have time, I may try to find the data and create one that is suitably licensed.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- "The morphology and luminosity of globular cluster stars" What does "morphology" mean in this context? The shape of the curve they make on the HR diagram? I'm not a content expert but that seems like a weird—and unnecessarily complex—word to use
- "the blending effect can introduce a systematic uncertainty into the cosmic distance ladder and may bias the estimated age of the Universe and the Hubble constant" what does this have to do with globular clusters
- "Certain clusters even display populations absent from other globular clusters (e.g. blue hook stars) or feature multiple populations" don't most clusters feature multiple populations?
- "gravothermal instability" what?
- "forms a power-law cusp" I don't think most readers will understand this
- The second paragraph of "Mass segregation" etc. really confuses me. I don't understand how the first sentence relates to the rest of the core collapse description
- "this stellar mass-sorting process" Again, I didn't hear anything about mass in the preceding paragraphs, so I'm really confused
- "Numerical simulations of globular clusters have demonstrated that binaries can hinder and even reverse the process of core collapse in globular clusters." Didn't we talk about this earlier?
- Not sure how FARC works but agreed with Sandy that the writing is a bit off. I twiddled about with the first couple sections; see if that helped at all. The reading difficulty is highly variable... in particular the Color-magnitude section begins with a relatively detailed explanation of HR diagrams that I think could be shortened. But I don't see anything deal-breaking. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashill: By the way, thank you so much for your work on this. The article is just a bit long but I'll get to your comments and everything soon. I think the article is a bit easier to parse so far. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went through and did a copyedit + adjustment of material I thought was way extra. But after the above concerns, I'm not opposed to keeping the bronze star. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Drive by comment
Should ", constraining estimates of the universe's age." be moved from the lead as a historical detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC: I did a quick skim of the article and here are some concerns: three paragraphs of uncited text, "Mass segregation, luminosity and core collapse" should be copyedited and trimmed, and the classification section might be expanded (it talks about a 2015 proposal for reclassification, is that still ongoing?) No major edits since mid-June and Ovinus has not edited since late-June. Ashill or Lithopsian might be interested in leading these improvements, as they commented above. If work continues, I'll strike my suggestion to move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - work on the article has been stalled for a month, and I still have concerns
- There's some uncited text yet that needs to be assessed for common knowledge or not
- "It is unclear why the Milky Way lacks such clusters; Andromeda is unlikely to be the sole galaxy with them, but their presence in other galaxies remains unknown" - Got a source more recent than 2005 to confirm that this is still unclear
- Any updates on that 2015 classification proposal?
- Some sources need page number citations, such as Moore 2005
- Are we sure Universe Today is high-quality RS
This is getting a lot closer, but there's work needed yet, and this is getting a bit stalled out. Like Z1720 above, I'm willing to strike this move to farc if work resumes. Hog Farm Talk 23:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delist: No edits to the article since its move to FARC, no comments on the talk page, and no engagement here. There are three paragraphs that do not have citations, and I think the article needs a copy-edit to fix structural problems like short paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reluctant delist - a lot of work was done, but not quite enough. This has been stalled out for about two months. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is being proposed to be delisted for what? Page numbers? Short paragraphs? Seems like extremely minor points to me. The uncited information is either common knowledge or covered by adjacent citations. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Great Lakes Storm of 1913
- Notified: Brian0918, GreatLakesShips, 7&6=thirteen, WP Lakes, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Canada, noticed in March
Review section
This 2005 promotion has not been reviewed since 2007, and needs a bit of a touchup for modern FA standards. The primary issue seems to be lack of inline citations in parts, although there are also some lesser layout issues caused by MOS:SANDWICHing. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I added in line citations and fixed and reformatted the book and other citations. Added more text.
- The "current values" is understated, and I don't know when anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed that. This was in the lead, and the answer is in the sourced body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that there has been quite a bit of editing since the nomination was posted; could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- One of the references added during the improvements, Enns, appears to be possibly self-published. What are the author's credentials? Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC Some work done over the last month, but the largest issues remain - uncited text etc. Additionally, one of the sources added (Enns) doesn't seem to be reliable, and I've found (and tagged) a spot where the source doesn't support all of the text, which indicates a possible other concern. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC: 7&6=thirteen made excellent edits in early May, but improvements have been limited for the past several weeks. There are lots of uncited paragraphs that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The very few uncited paragraphs are basically weather reports about the storm's progress. I presume those are in the newspapers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure that "very few" is the right descriptor. The second paragraphs of November 7 and November 8 are currently effectively unsourced, as the only reference is a note that just consists of an indirect citation for wind speeds, which does not obviously support text such as " Long ships traveled all that day through the St. Marys River, all night through the Straits of Mackinac, and early Sunday morning up the Detroit and St. Clair rivers". Much of the November 9 section lacks inline citations. The only source in the entire November 10 and 11 section is an indirect reference for wind speeds, which doesn't obviously support much of the content. The are two entire uncited paragraphs in On the lakes. There are also a couple spots in the Ships foundered text where I tagged statements not supported by the references. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ??To me it appears that the second paragraphs in the November 7th and 8th section s are sourced to: Brown, David G. (2002). White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. International Marine/ McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138037-X. I think that the "for wind speeds see.." note does not limit it's applicability to just that. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that's the case, I would recommend that the reference be placed at the paragraph, instead of in the note. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Z1720 here; its not obvious to those not working on the article that that is the case, and WP:FACR #1c states claims [...] are supported by inline citations where appropriate, and there are a number of specific statements in here that are not self-proving or general common knowledge and require the inline citations. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll work on fixing that. BTW, I'm more interested in article quality and not so much about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with just applying the current cite directly without having the book in hand. Perhaps someone else can do it. I just ordered the book. I am interested in working on the article and will do so. But it's not going to be fast and I'm not concerned about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see above that it's thought that some sourcing might be in old newspapers, too - I have access to newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, my immediate plans are that I'll have the book tomorrow, I'll get the second paragraphs of the November 7th and 8th sections more directly sourced. And I'd be happy to do that for any other specific areas noted. Being an entire book on the topic of the article I expect that it will be pretty comprehensive. But if it were to get de-listed, I wouldn't be working on any re-submittal. Even though I did it once for SS Edmund Fitzgerald I really don't do FA-specific work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- FAR co-ords are very amenable to keeping FARs "on hold" until fixes are complete. After your edits are complete North8000, I can conduct a copyedit and post clarification questions that I hope you will answer. With a little bit of work, this article can remain an FA. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Very happy to try! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- FAR co-ords are very amenable to keeping FARs "on hold" until fixes are complete. After your edits are complete North8000, I can conduct a copyedit and post clarification questions that I hope you will answer. With a little bit of work, this article can remain an FA. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, my immediate plans are that I'll have the book tomorrow, I'll get the second paragraphs of the November 7th and 8th sections more directly sourced. And I'd be happy to do that for any other specific areas noted. Being an entire book on the topic of the article I expect that it will be pretty comprehensive. But if it were to get de-listed, I wouldn't be working on any re-submittal. Even though I did it once for SS Edmund Fitzgerald I really don't do FA-specific work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see above that it's thought that some sourcing might be in old newspapers, too - I have access to newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with just applying the current cite directly without having the book in hand. Perhaps someone else can do it. I just ordered the book. I am interested in working on the article and will do so. But it's not going to be fast and I'm not concerned about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll work on fixing that. BTW, I'm more interested in article quality and not so much about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- ??To me it appears that the second paragraphs in the November 7th and 8th section s are sourced to: Brown, David G. (2002). White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. International Marine/ McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138037-X. I think that the "for wind speeds see.." note does not limit it's applicability to just that. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure that "very few" is the right descriptor. The second paragraphs of November 7 and November 8 are currently effectively unsourced, as the only reference is a note that just consists of an indirect citation for wind speeds, which does not obviously support text such as " Long ships traveled all that day through the St. Marys River, all night through the Straits of Mackinac, and early Sunday morning up the Detroit and St. Clair rivers". Much of the November 9 section lacks inline citations. The only source in the entire November 10 and 11 section is an indirect reference for wind speeds, which doesn't obviously support much of the content. The are two entire uncited paragraphs in On the lakes. There are also a couple spots in the Ships foundered text where I tagged statements not supported by the references. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I have the book. I'm buried in the real world for the next 5 days but will start on it after that. To start with I'll be focusing on the areas noted in Hog Farm's 03:49, 9 June 2021 post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed and sourced the 2nd paragraph in the November 7th section. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I finished with the November 8th section. Modified text to what I was able to source and sourced it.North8000 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I finished getting the November 9th section sourced North8000 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I finished sourcing the November 10th & 11th section. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the Enns source. Being questioned at FAR due to being SPS source. Also not needed. Only cited once, and that sentence is also supported by two other sources. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000: - I'll try to give this another read-through son. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Thanks. Per my edit of my comment I realized that there are still noted areas which need work. I plan to have the rest of those handled within a few days. But before or after that would be happy for any comments on how the improve the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000: - I'll try to give this another read-through son. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think that the "On the lakes" section is now tweaked to be sourcable and sufficiently sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed the noted problems in "ships foundered" section.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I think that all of the noted problems have been fixed.North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and layout. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- HF
- Alternate name of Big Blow in the lead needs a direct citation
- Wouldn't hurt to have a direct citation for "By then, the storm was centered over the upper Mississippi Valley and had caused moderate to brisk southerly winds with warmer weather over the lakes. The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." - if I remember when I'm less busy I'll try to poke around in old newspaper articles to see if I can find something
- "On November 8th ship traffic continued Traffic allowed traffic to begin flowing again" - not sure what's going on here, but I think something's off
- "Immediately following the blizzard of Cleveland, Ohio, the city began a campaign to move all utility cables underground, in tubes beneath major streets. The project took half a decade. - probably needs an inline citation
- "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below" - does this warrant a citation? I'm not sure that it's common knowledge since it's specific to this storm
- Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?
This is already looking quite a bit better than when FAR was opened. Someone better with images than me may want to look through licensing, and having someone look through this for some copy editing might help, too (I don't look at prose too closely, as I'm a redneck whose not always great with English). Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll work on several of those bulleted items.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Big Blow" moniker has now been sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Cleveland transition to underground cables is now sourced. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Resolved "often blew in directions opposite" issue. Edit summary: "Remove "often blew opposite" statement. Unable to source, plus this aspect did not show up to be particularly relevant, plus "rare" statement is probably an un-sourcable overreach" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- The edit removed the statement of This was the result of the storm's cyclonic motion, a phenomenon rarely seen on the Great Lakes. which I'll trust your judgment on that, as well as if the Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below. statement which still remains should remain, as well.
- Resolved /removed" "ship traffic continued" issue. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Regarding your "Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?" question, looking at the article state as of your post, ref #42 seems unrelated to that, and so I don't understand your question. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I was just wondering, because I've seen instance when the last ref before a table also covers the whole table. Was referring to the ref following The following shipwreck casualties have been documented:. If it doesn't source the individual total deaths associated to each ship, would it be possible to tie that down? I hope I don't seem excessively picky with sourcing, it's just that FA has gotten pretty source strenuous lately. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I enjoy improving the article including making it a very accurate article. And the process of providing more specific sourcing has in many cases led to modifications of the text that are improvements in the article in that respect. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is resolved.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000 and GreatLakesShips: - Has Plymouth been discovered? It looks like there's a bit of a controversy. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Great Lakes maritime historian Ric Mixter has stated (here and here) that the wreck discovered in 1984 is likely the Erastus Corning.
- In the Plymouth article the text says that (only) that a wreck suspected to be the Plymouth was found. But the reference/cite for for that text flatly says that it was found in 1984. @GreatLakesShips: what are your thoughts? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source we have currently in the article that is stating that it was definitely found wad discussed negatively at RSN once, although that was in 2012. May be best to find a stronger source and then state that it's disputed, if possible. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:@North8000: Based on the sources I have provided, I think the article should something like "wreckage found near Poverty Island in 1984 was suspected to be that of Plymouth, although this is unconfirmed". GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source we have currently in the article that is stating that it was definitely found wad discussed negatively at RSN once, although that was in 2012. May be best to find a stronger source and then state that it's disputed, if possible. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000 and GreatLakesShips: - Has Plymouth been discovered? It looks like there's a bit of a controversy. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is resolved.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I enjoy improving the article including making it a very accurate article. And the process of providing more specific sourcing has in many cases led to modifications of the text that are improvements in the article in that respect. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I was just wondering, because I've seen instance when the last ref before a table also covers the whole table. Was referring to the ref following The following shipwreck casualties have been documented:. If it doesn't source the individual total deaths associated to each ship, would it be possible to tie that down? I hope I don't seem excessively picky with sourcing, it's just that FA has gotten pretty source strenuous lately. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- The "....By then, the storm was centered...." issue has been resolved by removal of the sentence. I discussed this more thoroughly at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that all of the (six) noted items have been resolved.North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720 and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- From a quick look, there's a bit of a contradiction - table says that Plymouth has not been definitely found, while the prose says "In 1984 the previously-unfound Plymouth was located off of Poverty island" which is pretty unequivocal. I think having another pair of eyes to look at prose would be nice. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't review the article at the moment because I am busy in real life. If this is still open in August I will take another look, but please don't let my busy schedule hold up this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll list this at GOCE to see if this can get a copy edit. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take a harder look at the Plymouth issue. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I just listened to a 50 minute extremely detailed history of the Plymouth covering from long before the storm through the supposed find at Poverty island and up through 2020. It was put on by an organization that studies such things and produces such hosted video presentations and the expert was a guest on this one who is an author and a very careful, thorough expert researcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJ8mHA_ZBc It's a slam-dunk that the find at Poverty island was not the Plymouth and that circa 2020 the wreck had not been found. Further, the source in the current article that said it had been found was not even about the topic, it was a memorial page for an individual that died on it. I don't want to push a FA into a question area by using a video presentation viewed as a reference, but I think that any statements that it has been found and at Poverty island are false / baseless and have no actually reliable source. I'll take them out accordingly. North8000 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done. The Plymouth issue is fixed. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to @GreatLakesShips: which set this on a course to improvement. ~!North8000 (talk)
- I just listened to a 50 minute extremely detailed history of the Plymouth covering from long before the storm through the supposed find at Poverty island and up through 2020. It was put on by an organization that studies such things and produces such hosted video presentations and the expert was a guest on this one who is an author and a very careful, thorough expert researcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJ8mHA_ZBc It's a slam-dunk that the find at Poverty island was not the Plymouth and that circa 2020 the wreck had not been found. Further, the source in the current article that said it had been found was not even about the topic, it was a memorial page for an individual that died on it. I don't want to push a FA into a question area by using a video presentation viewed as a reference, but I think that any statements that it has been found and at Poverty island are false / baseless and have no actually reliable source. I'll take them out accordingly. North8000 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- From a quick look, there's a bit of a contradiction - table says that Plymouth has not been definitely found, while the prose says "In 1984 the previously-unfound Plymouth was located off of Poverty island" which is pretty unequivocal. I think having another pair of eyes to look at prose would be nice. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't help for Plymouth, but this is an RS that discusses the shipwrecks, so it may be helpful for that portion. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
To recap, I finished working on the noted issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Review by Z1720
@North8000: I did a review of the article and fixed things that I could. I have some questions below that I hope you or another expert can answer:
- "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways?
- I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE?
- "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.)
- " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation
- WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
- I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below.
- For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
- "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
- "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River?
- Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article?
- Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
- November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
- "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area?
- I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day?
- First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
- "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation.
- "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
- "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense?
- "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used?
- "was also noted and criticized." By whom?
- "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed?
- "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the otehr vessals. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
- I did a search for images of the storm from London, Ontario archives, which I find extremely frustrating. I am going to keep looking, as I have connections in that city that might help. I also looked in Lambton County Archives (where Sarnia is located) but their database's coding is terrible and did not garner results. Ontario Archives's database did not yield results, either, though I might give them a phone call to see if a librarian can find better information. Overall, extremely frustrating trying to find Canadian images, because I want to diversify from all the Cleveland images. I won't let this stop me from recommending "keep" later on in the process.
Those are my thoughts. EDIT: Forgot to sign yesterday, so here it is: Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Work on items listed by Z1720
Those look like 22 good ideas that I would be happy to work on or address. Two quick notes; my interest is in improving the article rather than being concerned about FA status. Also I just came there recently and only about 5% of it was written by me. I copied your points below in order to organize responses or put them in-line:
- "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways? Resolved: Good idea, I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE? Preliminary partial response: I took one out where it was easy. The others will need / trigger more in-depth work including on content because some are used only in the lead.North8000 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.) Resolved: Fixed. Clarified every instance of just "weather Bureau: North8000 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation. Resolved: Added a source North8000 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
- I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below. Resolved: I think that that is fine. Also it looks like Mataafa is the overwhelmingly common name for the 1905 storm and that "Big Blow" is seldom used for it. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
- "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
- "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River? Resolved: Yes, and I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article? Resolved: Removed this note and similar ones. Edit summaries said: "Removed note that was not useful or informative. Also, there was no specific info on this to present from the source." North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION? Response: IMHO not. IMHO the date bases framework provides an excellent structure for the core of the article, and there is already sufficient material for the two separate dates. Also, a natural expansion of the article using that framework (which I intend to do) would add additional material to each of those two separate sections. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
- "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area? Resolved:Change to "wait for the storm to pass" which more precisely matches what the source said. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day?
- First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
- "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation. Resolved: This was old text; I never saw it in any source and it looks unsourcable as written. I removed it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
- "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense? Resolved: That wording was my summary of what the source said. I dialed back the statement including removing "perfect". The defense is in the following sentence which is "They did not have enough data (including upper atmospheric data), communications and analysis capability, or understanding of atmospheric dynamics to predict the storm, including wind directions which are key to the ability of ships to avoid or cope with the effects of the storm." North8000 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used? Resolved This has a specialized meaning for bulk carrier ship. It has narrow usage in that context but is the correct technical term. I believe that the description given covers it. I could expand but IMO that might be overkill. I also added a reference and also an internal link to an article section that explains / uses that specialized meaning.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "was also noted and criticized." By whom?
- "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed? Partial/preliminary response: Regarding change proposals and changes made directly in response to the storm, it appears that there were nearly none except the ones noted in Cleveland. That wording was my summary from the noted pages in the source. But I concur that that area needs expansion and improvement. There is good material available. For example, one somewhat related change (adding lifeboats) was one of the causes of the worst ever Great Lakes shipping disaster, the SS Eastland capsize killing 844 people. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the other vessels. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000: if you are willing to improve the article, I and other editors will focus on whether it meets FA standards. It doesn't matter who wrote the original article, anyone is free to make changes and improvements. Please ping me when the above concerns are resolved or if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Cool. I know that I can change anything but I always start out more cautiously when I arrive at an article. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- For several of these, in order to do a good job, I'll need to obtain and read/absorb more of the sources. I'm buying 2 more of the books but even just receiving them will take a week. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Leonhard Euler
- Notified: Borisblue, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Education, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Systems, WikiProject Music theory, diff for talk page notification April 4
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006 and hasn't been evaluated since. Hog Farm notes on the talk page that "There's a good bit of uncited text, and the length of the further reading compared to the number of sources used has me concerned about "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"." (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle: I see you've added some citations; are you able and willing to address the concerns raised above? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Well the article is by far better expanded than when he was nominated in 2006. I've noticed some uncertainties, which I try to address further on, but not necessarily to keep an FA. I just read the FA criteria a minute ago. I guess in prose the article needs some copy edit. The sources available in the article are I guess rather good. Specially on the bio in St. Petersburgh. But on math, I don't know how well they are used. I am not a math formula specialist, (yet, who knows?). Maybe also ping an editor on mathematics?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC Despite efforts there are no improvements ongoing, sourcing issues (uncited text, etc.) remain. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- "No improvements ongoing" is dubious; there have been over 50 individual edits to the article, many significant, and many involving sourcing, since the FAR opened. "There are no improvements ongoing" was stated only two days after the most recent previous improvement. FA reviewers have made no effort to identify problematic uncited material, or to distinguish between uncited material that is general background knowledge from uncited material that makes a specific claim and needs a citation. Merely stating "there's a good bit of uncited text" is too unspecific to be possible to address directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- You seem not to notice that I made the comment 6 days ago. Actually I think that unsourced content is a perfectly specific issue with a straightforward fix. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- How could I not have noticed that when I specifically compared the date of your comment to the date of the most recent improvement prior to your comment? And in some cases it takes considerable effort to find the right sources, not because there is too little sourcing because there is too much. For instance, in searching for a source for the one-sentence link to Euler–Bernoulli beam theory, I found that Google Scholar claims to have 50,000 sources for the exact phrase "Euler-Bernoulli beam". Despite that, it might be more straightforward if the people complaining about things being unsourced would be more specific about which things, in a 67kb article, they think are inadequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You seem not to notice that I made the comment 6 days ago. Actually I think that unsourced content is a perfectly specific issue with a straightforward fix. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- "No improvements ongoing" is dubious; there have been over 50 individual edits to the article, many significant, and many involving sourcing, since the FAR opened. "There are no improvements ongoing" was stated only two days after the most recent previous improvement. FA reviewers have made no effort to identify problematic uncited material, or to distinguish between uncited material that is general background knowledge from uncited material that makes a specific claim and needs a citation. Merely stating "there's a good bit of uncited text" is too unspecific to be possible to address directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe and Nikkimaria: WP:FARC states "An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review." I see nothing in this section that looks specific enough to count as a review for my taste. Surely a review means, you know, actual review, and not merely the creation of a review section and then passing a waiting period with no actual review forthcoming. I am concerned that (similarly to Buidhe's comment above, seemingly) FARC contributors may start making "delist" comments without paying any attention to the significant improvements made since the beginning of the FAR, or that despite these improvements the article will be viewed as lacking in some specific way and that (because such a problem was never discussed in the FAR) the delist comments will snowball before there is any opportunity to make further improvements. I have repeatedly quick-failed GA candidates for inadequate sourcing, but never without providing guidance to which parts of the article require sourcing and why. May I please have some feedback on whether the current sourcing is adequate, or if not on which specific points in the article need sourcing or better sourcing? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Hog Farm:. --JBL (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also pinging Paradise Chronicle so they can elaborate on their concerns. On the general question: I see and appreciate that there have been improvements made to the article since its nomination, and delisting is by no means a foregone conclusion at this point - if someone were to raise issues requiring edits and work is ongoing/planned to address those, we're happy to keep the nomination open longer to support that, and to eventually conclude the nomination in favour of retaining FA status once that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, Nikkimaria, and Buidhe: - The uncited text seems to have been mostly addressed, so I'll go ahead and give it a bit of a look-through and leave some notes in the FARC section below. Hog Farm Talk 01:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- After the many edits by Eppstein, I guess the article has sure made a considerable improvement on the mathematics. On the bio part I have sourced several phrases and expanded it slightly as well. (Others, who have not been pinged have also worked on the article since). I might find a few phrases more to source but the main parts are sourced. The more I work on the article I see that Leonard Euler has sort of been really influential on mathematics and has qualified authors. I am sure the sources are already available in the article to keep it an FA and I guess Eppstein has done a good work in that regard.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he's still a towering figure in mathematics. There's a reason for the "master of us all" monicker. That's part of what makes sourcing this article difficult work: he made such fundamental contributions to so many subjects that we are reduced to single-sentence summaries of topics that have entire books devoted to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- HF comments
- "including its best-known result, the Euler–Lagrange equation." - stating that something is the "best-known" may need a citation for this.
- Fluid dynamics is mentioned in the lead, but the word "fluid" only appears in the lead, some references, and a category (I don't know enough about fluid dynamics to determine where if its discussed under another name, please excuse my stupidity if it is) - is the sentence about inviscid flow the fluid dynamics stuff?
- I'm trying to do a little c/e as I go along, although it wouldn't hurt to try to get someone to copy-edit this (stuff like "fathers" vs "father's"
- "Euler's daring use of power series enabled him to solve the famous Basel problem in 1735" - unclear what "daring use" means here; it may be best to just drop the "daring"
- "Euler has an extensive bibliography. His best-known books include:" - are there sources calling these the best-known works, or are these simply ones picked out by editors?
Grinstein & Lipsey needs the isbn, if applicable- Probably ought to include the publisher for the Eulogy by Fuss, as it's being hosted online with a few notes
- "A. Ya. Yakovlev (1983). Leonhard Euler. M.: Prosvesheniye." - Is this a book? A paper? A journal article? Does this need page numbers?
Wanner & Hairer needs the isbn- Caldwell's largest known prime by year needs the publisher (University of Tennessee - Martin)
- "Youschkevitch, A P (1970–1990). Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York." - needs page numbers, and it looks like this source is in multiple volumes, so we need the volume number]
- Sources that do not appear to be in English such as "Gindikin, S.G., Гиндикин С. Г., МЦНМО, НМУ, 2001, с. 217." should generally say what language the source is in.
That's from a quick run-through, it looks like the hard part here will be cleaning up the sometimes-messy referencing format. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I've added the two isbn's, I hope you don't mind that I've struck them from your list (to save others confusion about what remains). --JBL (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here's better bibliographic data for the Yakovlev reference:
MR0735260 Yakovlev, A. Ya. Леонард Èй лер. (Russian) [Leonhard Euler] Люди Науки. [People of Science] "Prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1983. 80 pp.
--JBL (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)- I'm not convinced the Euler–Lagrange equation is the best-known result in the calculus of variations (it may be one of the most fundamental, but that's not the same thing, and an equation is not a result), so I reworded. One could plausibly justify "daring" for the Basel problem in terms of the way his solution works by handling a much more general problem, but I think better to just remove the editorialization, so I did that as well. Same for the "best-known works": I don't see why we need to argue how well they were known rather than just saying that this is a selection of his works. Maybe earlier years of FA reviewing were more focused on unnecessarily flowery language and less on justification of the adjectives and adverbs? Yakovlev reference updated per JBL's comment, including tagging it for its language. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- After cutting off for the evening I've made many other improvements to the citations, but I think not everything discussed above. The Gindikin source (the last bullet above) is an odd case: it repeats the author's name twice instead of giving a title, and there was an English version of what turns out to be the same book (assuming the missing title is the obvious one with that publisher and year) which we should have been citing instead. Fixed now. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced the Euler–Lagrange equation is the best-known result in the calculus of variations (it may be one of the most fundamental, but that's not the same thing, and an equation is not a result), so I reworded. One could plausibly justify "daring" for the Basel problem in terms of the way his solution works by handling a much more general problem, but I think better to just remove the editorialization, so I did that as well. Same for the "best-known works": I don't see why we need to argue how well they were known rather than just saying that this is a selection of his works. Maybe earlier years of FA reviewing were more focused on unnecessarily flowery language and less on justification of the adjectives and adverbs? Yakovlev reference updated per JBL's comment, including tagging it for its language. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yakovlev is a book, probably pre-ISBN--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's how I had formatted it from JBL's information. The MR review is not very complementary, calling it "conventional hagiography", complaining about its lack of insight into Euler's thoughts, and quibbling with many of its claims for priority and missing topics. What we're using it for seems unobjectionable (minor details of Euler's death) but I'm wondering if we need to be citing a non-English-language and not particularly scholarly work for this material, or whether a better source for the same material (perhaps one we're already using) exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with citing a Russian source (after all, Euler spent a considerable part of his caree in Saint Petersburg and is buried there), but this is an outreach edition, directed at a general audience, presumably wioth zero prior knowledge of math. Probably we can fins something more comprehensive.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Yakovlev book, from its review, is aimed at a high school and undergraduate student audience (probably general enough for this material). And I have nothing against other-language sources, when necessary. But for material that should be in many sources, I think it is better for our audience to pick an English-language source when there's a good one available. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with citing a Russian source (after all, Euler spent a considerable part of his caree in Saint Petersburg and is buried there), but this is an outreach edition, directed at a general audience, presumably wioth zero prior knowledge of math. Probably we can fins something more comprehensive.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's how I had formatted it from JBL's information. The MR review is not very complementary, calling it "conventional hagiography", complaining about its lack of insight into Euler's thoughts, and quibbling with many of its claims for priority and missing topics. What we're using it for seems unobjectionable (minor details of Euler's death) but I'm wondering if we need to be citing a non-English-language and not particularly scholarly work for this material, or whether a better source for the same material (perhaps one we're already using) exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fluid dynamics mention in the lead was already supported by a sentence about "inviscid flow" in the article — I mentioned "fluid dynamics" again there to make it easier for other readers to search from the lead for the matching concept later. Caldwell publisher added. The comment about the publisher of the eulogy by Fuss led me to discover that we had two different citations to this eulogy (one the original, the other translated); now merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, more references cleaned up, including the Youschkevitch one. I think that's the last of Hog Farm's issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is looking a lot better. I think there could be some minor formatting improvements on a few of the web sources at the end (mainly how to deal with citing the Euler Archive more consistently), but I think this is fairly close to this being kept. I hope to get to a full read-through soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further comments (HF)
- " Euler is also widely considered to be the most prolific, as his collected works fill 92 volumes" - most prolific is only found in the lead, the body gives the differing figure of 60-80 volumes
- The Laplace and Gauss quotes are only in the lead; material in the lead should generally also be in the body
- Johann Hennert is only mentioned in the infobox
- Stepan Rumovsky is only mentioned in the infobox
- The association with Joseph-Louis Lagrange is only mentioned in the infobox, it seems to merit mention in the body, as well
- "Paul was a friend of the Bernoulli family[11] was interested in mathematics and" - copy editing issues, needs either a comma or another word
- "In 1720, with only thirteen years of age, he enrolled at the University of Basel" - isn't the more standard phrasing "at only thirteen years of age"
- "while leaving the Russian navy" - shouldn't this be Russian Navy, as a proper noun?
- "He lived for 25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles. In Berlin, he published the two works for which he would become most renowned: the Introductio in analysin infinitorum, a text on functions published in 1748, and the Institutiones calculi differentialis" - This whole thing is sourced to a 1787 work by Euler, I'm not sure that's going to be a particularly great source for 25 years in Berlin, 380 articles, or his two most renowned publications.
- "which were later compiled into a best-selling volume entitled Letters of Euler on different Subjects in Natural Philosophy Addressed to a German Princess" - They had the concept of best-selling back then?
- "Despite Euler's immense contribution to the Academy's prestige, and was also put forward as a candidate for its presidency by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Frederick II named himself as its president" - Something is off here grammatically solved?
- "In 1760, with the Seven Years' War raging, Euler's farm in Charlottenburg was sacked by advancing Russian troops" - only mention of Charlottenburg in the whole article, it seems worthwhile to mention that he lived there
- "Euler was featured on both the sixth and seventh series of the Swiss 10-franc banknote and on numerous Swiss, German, and Russian postage stamps. The asteroid 2002 Euler was named in his honour. He is also commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints on 24 May—he was a devout Christian (and believer in biblical inerrancy) who wrote apologetics and argued forcefully against the prominent atheists of his time" - Source is an 18th-century paper by Euler, which obviously doesn't support a modern asteroid name, modern banknotes, and a Lutheran holiday.
- "The first collection of Euler's work was made by Paul Heinrich von Fuss, Euler's great-grandson and Nicolas Fuss's son, in 1862" - I'm not sure that's its really good sourcing to cite that Fuss's work was the first collection to Fuss's work itself.
- " "Euler Archive Moves To MAA Website". digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com. Retrieved 9 January 2020." - publisher should be Mathematical Association of America, not walsworthprintgroup.com.
This is looking a lot better, it should be just about ready to be kept once these are fixed. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added Rumovsky to the body (as a notable student of Euler in Berlin), but now he is only listed as the only notable student, if we can add more it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed up the "Euler Archive Moves To MAA Website" reference and removed the "best-selling" description. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have added a source for the 10Chf banknotes, and added one more student (Lexell).
- and also for the Swiss Opera Omnia (Eulers Complete Works)
- About the mention in the Lutheran calendar (I've seen this is only for the ELCA the case, The ELCA was established in 1988 and there I couldn't find anything as well. Per Wikipedia, the ELCA represents 1.4% of the US population. Might not be notable enough for a mention?)
- Paul Heinrich von Fuss only published a few of his works. The Swedish and Swiss works seem more notable to me.
- I addressed the Charlottenburg issue with source when he bought the house.
- Russian Navy is solved
- The Paul Bernoulli phrase I hope is solved as well
- And the Frederick 2 issue I tried to solve (there I'd be glad for a second view)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- There was a bigger problem with the "first collection of Euler's work was made by Paul Heinrich von Fuss" claim, illustrative of why we should not be using this sort of source-for-itself: The Fuss 1862 paper was not really a "collection of Euler's work", so much as a collection of unpublished works that had (unlike hundreds of others) escaped posthumous publication. I found a published journal paper that details this and the rest of the history of publications of Euler's works (the one by Kleinert), added it to the article, and edited the article accordingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Shall we remove the ELCA Lutheran Calendar mention? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, and Paradise Chronicle: - Here's a handful of a few more comments.
- "Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture" - this is sourced entirely to the works of Euler himself, secondary commentary is probably needed to really support some of the conclusions drawn here
- The concern about primary sourcing for "He lived for 25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles. In Berlin, he published the two works for which he would become most renowned: the Introductio in analysin infinitorum, a text on functions published in 1748, and the Institutiones calculi differentialis" is still outstanding.
This is looking much better than when the FAR was opened. @Buidhe: - Do you have any additional comments here as original FAR nominator? Hog Farm Talk 00:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- "25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles" should be easy to source. "Most renowned" may be harder, though: he is very highly renowned among diverse communities of mathematicians for different things, so if you ask n of them for his most famous result or publication you might get n different answers. Can we phrase that part in a less opinionated way? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the "most renowned" part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I found a source from an Euler colloquium in May 1983 edited by Eberhard Knobloch. I sourced the the 25 years, but the source in German didn't say the exact amount of the articles he wrote, just hundreds. So I used this expression. Additionally, I found a phrase on his religious beliefs, and another one for a short stay at the theological faculty in Basel. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the "most renowned" part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: - As the original nominator, do you have any outstanding concerns with the article yet? I will note that my point above about the "Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs ... " is not fully addressed yet. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning keep—due to the massive sourcing improvements from David Eppstein and some other work by myself and Paradise Chronicle, this one seems largely back to standard as far as I can tell. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: - I'd still like to see the original research issue in sourcing Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture entirely to one of Euler's works be addressed, but once that gets fixed, I'll be at keep, I think too. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Review by Z1720
Let's get this FAR closed! Pinging the same editors pinged for HF's review above. If I missed someone please let me know: @David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, and Paradise Chronicle:
- "he entered the Paris Academy Prize Problem competition" I think there should be a short half-sentence explaining what this competition is.
- "Around this time Johann Bernoulli's two sons," Around what time?
- "cut funding and caused other difficulties for Euler and his colleagues." What difficulties? This should be expanded.
- "Conditions improved slightly after the death of Peter II," How long after Peter II's ascension did he pass away? This should be stated in the article so we know what year we are speaking of.
- "Concerned about the continuing turmoil in Russia," What caused this turmoil in Russia? This should be specified in the article.
- "Notable students of Euler in Berlin included Stepan Rumovsky, later considered as the first Russian astronomer." Does this need to be included in this article? This feels like WP:TRIVIA
- "After several further misunderstandings Euler decided to leave Berlin in 1766." These further understandings should be described.
- "At the university he was assisted by his student Anders Johan Lexell." Is this important to the article or is it WP:TRIVIA?
This takes me to "Contributions to mathematics and physics", which I will continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm much more interested in issues with the mathematics content than with the parts about his life story, but I added a little more about the Paris Academy prizes, with a source. It's not at all clear to me that "Paris Academy Prize Problem" is a proper noun phrase; the Paris Academy offered an annual prize, based on competing to solve a problem, but the prize would have been called something in French like le prix de l'académie de Paris and appears to be the one described under a different name at fr:Grand prix des sciences mathématiques. I don't think the competition for the prize of the academy, or the problem posed for the competition for the prize of the academy, would have had separate names. So anyway, I replaced Paris Academy Prize Problem by (non-italic) Paris Academy prize competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The two sons of Bernoulli were active at the Academy since 1725.
- And the phrase of his departure was followed by other misunderstandings so I adapted the phrase accordingly and moved it to the end of the Berlin section. Then the turmoils are worded differently as suspicious and censorship in the section of St.Petersburg, I've expanded a bit on it.
- The question on Peter II death was not clear. I anyway added the year he passed away and added his successor Anna of Russia.
- If Stepan Rumovsky is important, I don't know. Lexell I included to show the notability of the assistance he received after the deterioration of his eyesight.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks David Eppstein and Paradise Chronicle for responding to my comments above so quickly. I continued my review below. For future responses, please comment under the bullet point you are addressing, similar to the format used in WP:FAC. This will help me keep the concerns organised. Please keep in mind that I am not a math person and have no specialty in this area, so many of my questions will seem dumb. I hope you will be patient with me.
- For "Contributions to mathematics and physics": There's an article called Contributions of Leonhard Euler to mathematics, which is shorter than this section. Should some (most?) of the information in this section be moved to the contributions article?
- I think a biography of a mathematician that removes most of the information about the mathematics they contributed is pointless. Why not write about some random 17th-century nobleman, instead, if you don't want to write about mathematics? Certainly such a move would make me lose all interest in contributing to this FAR and perhaps shift to recommending against continuation of its FA status. Perhaps the other article could be redirected to a section of this one, but that should be irrelevant to the FAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am glad that you are writing about mathematics: this is an under-represented topic at Wikipedia and needs knowledgeable editors to contribute. Euler is a biography article and in my opinion needs to be more easily assessable to a reader than an article explaining mathematical concepts. I believe this article should have an introduction and summary for each of Euler's contributions and the reader can click on a wikilink for more information. I think the "Graph theory" section does an excellent job with this because it introduces the Seven Bridges of Königsberg and formula regarding convex polyhedron without going into too much detail. I do not expect every section to be as short as Graph theory, but I am highlighting that section as an example of a good use of summary style. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I fear you have been misled by the nature of the material. In graph theory, Euler made two baby steps, but they were important because they were the first steps. Still, our coverage of this is somewhat superficial, not even describing what a graph is or how the problem is transformed into a graph. On many other topics, Euler made giant steps, so many of them in so many areas that it is difficult to summarize them all. Our coverage is still necessarily and appropriately superficial, but to you it looks more technical because even summarizing them requires some technicality and because there are so many of them and they pile up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am glad that you are writing about mathematics: this is an under-represented topic at Wikipedia and needs knowledgeable editors to contribute. Euler is a biography article and in my opinion needs to be more easily assessable to a reader than an article explaining mathematical concepts. I believe this article should have an introduction and summary for each of Euler's contributions and the reader can click on a wikilink for more information. I think the "Graph theory" section does an excellent job with this because it introduces the Seven Bridges of Königsberg and formula regarding convex polyhedron without going into too much detail. I do not expect every section to be as short as Graph theory, but I am highlighting that section as an example of a good use of summary style. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think a biography of a mathematician that removes most of the information about the mathematics they contributed is pointless. Why not write about some random 17th-century nobleman, instead, if you don't want to write about mathematics? Certainly such a move would make me lose all interest in contributing to this FAR and perhaps shift to recommending against continuation of its FA status. Perhaps the other article could be redirected to a section of this one, but that should be irrelevant to the FAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- The formatting of this section could use an expert. After determining what can be moved over to the contributions article, I suggest an expert copy-edit this section to merge smaller paragraphs and cut or split larger ones. For example, the first paragraph in the "Logic" section is too short, while the second paragraph is look long.
- You know that paragraphs should be organized by logical topics, rather than by the aesthetic appearance of their line lengths, right? I split the second paragraph into one long one and another short one, so now we have three paragraphs, on three aspects to this topic: Euler's introduction of Euler diagrams, what they are, and how they are used nowadays. The other alternative would be to merge them all together into one big paragraph.
- In WP:PARAGRAPH, it says that one-sentence paragraphs should be used sparingly. "Physics, astronomy, and engineering" and "Logic" has a couple of these short paragraphs. Can these paragraphs be merged or perhaps expanded to explain their significance?
- You know that paragraphs should be organized by logical topics, rather than by the aesthetic appearance of their line lengths, right? I split the second paragraph into one long one and another short one, so now we have three paragraphs, on three aspects to this topic: Euler's introduction of Euler diagrams, what they are, and how they are used nowadays. The other alternative would be to merge them all together into one big paragraph.
- The section often talks about Euler's important contributions, which seems POV. I recommend phrasing like this be removed; the reader can determine on their own that they are important contributions when they read about what he has actually done. The article can also talk about how his contributions are important (what they influenced, new ideas that were possible because of his discoveries, etc.) that show the reader that his contributions are important (which is better than telling the reader that his contributions are important).
- This comment seems motivated by a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and one that is strangely contradictory to the comment above asking to remove most of the mathematics. Saying that important contributions are important, when reliable sources agree they are important, is not problematic. WP:NPOV does not require us to omit opinions, and state only what can be verified as mathematical fact; it only requires that, when we report opinions, we provide the mainstream of opinions and attribute them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Opinions do not have to be omitted. It's difficult for Wikipedia to maintain WP:WIKIVOICE with qualitative, opinionated statements. One solution is what I suggested above, another is to add the people who have said he is important to the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- This comment seems motivated by a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and one that is strangely contradictory to the comment above asking to remove most of the mathematics. Saying that important contributions are important, when reliable sources agree they are important, is not problematic. WP:NPOV does not require us to omit opinions, and state only what can be verified as mathematical fact; it only requires that, when we report opinions, we provide the mainstream of opinions and attribute them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
After this section is fixed up, I will take another, more detailed look at it. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Z1720, I suggest you leave the formatting and on what is important/POV etc. in mathematics to the editors on mathematics. Leonard Euler was one of the most influential personalities in mathematics, and this is important. The main issue at the beginning of the FAR was the sourcing and this one has been addressed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle: All FACs require a non-expert to review and comment on the formatting. Since an FAR is another look at the FA criteria, I think it's important that non-experts also comment on FARs, too. I encourage disagreement with my comments, accompanied by an explanation. This allows the FAR co-ords to determine why things are a certain way in the article and prevent articles from returning to FAR with concerns that have already been addressed here. I am not commenting on what I think is important to include, but instead suggesting that it could be summarized more effectively. While this article was brought to FAR for sourcing concerns, all FA criteria is examined in an FAR. I will ensure that the article complies with all FA criteria, as per my understanding of the criteria, before recommending that this "keep" its status. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, non-experts sure should comment on FAR but the formatting has received a lot of time. Besides mathematics is an exact science where there is little room for doubt if something is important/"POV" or not. In mathematics it is mostly not depending on a POV if something exists or not much less at Eulers involvement in mathematics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle: All FACs require a non-expert to review and comment on the formatting. Since an FAR is another look at the FA criteria, I think it's important that non-experts also comment on FARs, too. I encourage disagreement with my comments, accompanied by an explanation. This allows the FAR co-ords to determine why things are a certain way in the article and prevent articles from returning to FAR with concerns that have already been addressed here. I am not commenting on what I think is important to include, but instead suggesting that it could be summarized more effectively. While this article was brought to FAR for sourcing concerns, all FA criteria is examined in an FAR. I will ensure that the article complies with all FA criteria, as per my understanding of the criteria, before recommending that this "keep" its status. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Continuing comments:
- "In 1757 he published an important set of equations for inviscid flow in fluid dynamics, that are now known as the Euler equations.[84]" I am concerned that this sentence says this set of equations is important, but it is cited to Euler's publication. Can another citation be added to this sentence that verifies that these equations are important?
- Um. Google Scholar says there are approximately 250,000 (!) references on the Euler equations. Is it really necessary to pick one as representative here, and one that says something so banal as that they are "important"? Wouldn't our wikilink to that topic perform better as a way for readers to verify that information? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am surprised by how short the Commemorations section is. I went to Euler (disambiguation) and found an uncited claim that AMS Euler is named for Euler. I am trying to track down a high-quality reliable source for this; does anyone have any ideas? Also, are there any ideas of other commemorations for Euler, perhaps statues, buildings named for him at universities, street names, or other computer software/mathematical products?
- We have a separate List of things named after Leonhard Euler. Some random typeface named after him is too minor to list here, among the many many things named after him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- What would be unusual is if anything in mathematics called "Euler" were not named after Leonhard but rather after Bob Euler of Lincoln, Nebraska instead. At any rate, one of the citations already in that article explicitly stated the source of the name, so re-using that gives a footnote for that (unremarkable) claim. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness, I did not realise how extensive this list it. Should List of things named after Leonhard Euler be hatnoted at the top of this section? I would be in favour of adding prose describing the things named for Euler. Maybe something like, "Several of Euler's contributions to mathematics, physics and music are named for him, such as [insert two or three of the most popular/most influential contributions here]. After his death, several objects and products were named in his honour including the 2002 Euler astroid, a toy called Euler's Disk, and the AMS Euler typeface for displaying mathematical equations." For the products, it doesn't have to be these three but I think those are pretty notable/interesting things named for him. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- MANY MANY of Euler's contributions to mathematics are named after him. They comprise much of the mathematical content of this article, and are appropriately described in brief in the article rather than merely listed as a handful of names of topics. There is a reason for the "master of us all" terminology. Your comments here give the impression that you still think he was just a middle-of-the-road mathematician for his time, rather than someone who is still a towering figure over many fields of mathematics today. That impression is leading you towards trying to minimize his mathematical accomplishments, a mistake for this particular article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- The most significant mathematical and scientific ones are detailed in the contributions section. A compromise might be to focus the commemorations section on non-mathematical or scientific topics; e.i. the things that are actually commemorating him, not derived from him. At any rates, List of things named after Leonhard Euler should probably be linked somewhere in here. Hog Farm Talk 20:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- MANY MANY of Euler's contributions to mathematics are named after him. They comprise much of the mathematical content of this article, and are appropriately described in brief in the article rather than merely listed as a handful of names of topics. There is a reason for the "master of us all" terminology. Your comments here give the impression that you still think he was just a middle-of-the-road mathematician for his time, rather than someone who is still a towering figure over many fields of mathematics today. That impression is leading you towards trying to minimize his mathematical accomplishments, a mistake for this particular article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness, I did not realise how extensive this list it. Should List of things named after Leonhard Euler be hatnoted at the top of this section? I would be in favour of adding prose describing the things named for Euler. Maybe something like, "Several of Euler's contributions to mathematics, physics and music are named for him, such as [insert two or three of the most popular/most influential contributions here]. After his death, several objects and products were named in his honour including the 2002 Euler astroid, a toy called Euler's Disk, and the AMS Euler typeface for displaying mathematical equations." For the products, it doesn't have to be these three but I think those are pretty notable/interesting things named for him. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- What would be unusual is if anything in mathematics called "Euler" were not named after Leonhard but rather after Bob Euler of Lincoln, Nebraska instead. At any rate, one of the citations already in that article explicitly stated the source of the name, so re-using that gives a footnote for that (unremarkable) claim. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have a separate List of things named after Leonhard Euler. Some random typeface named after him is too minor to list here, among the many many things named after him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- The works listed in "Bibliography" were formatted inconsistently. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I reformatted the bibliography. My changes included: removing ISBNs (as WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY says ISBNs might be unhelpful for works that have had multiple editions, which I suspect is the case here), putting the works in chronological order by first publication, removing explanations of what the publication is (as this should be explained in the other sections, where appropriate), and other formatting consistencies. I invite editors to take a look and add information where appropriate. Hopefully, book title translations to English can be cited and verified.
- Was Letters to a German Princess originally published in English? If not, the article should have the original title first (In French I think?) then the English translation afterward.
- Are the sources in "Further reading" high-quality sources? If so, they should be used in the article. If not, I recommend removing them because if a source is not good enough to be used in the article, I don't think Wikipedia should recommend that readers seek it out.
- I already made a pass through this limiting the Further reading section to reliably published book-length sources primarily about Euler, so yes, they are high-quality sources. (I just removed one that was added yesterday that was not book-length.) It should not be necessary to use all such sources as references in the article; what is important is that we cover the material about the subject in a verifiable way, not that we make excuses to shoehorn-in references. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree - I looked at this earlier and thought it was fine. It's generally impossible to work in every single major work on a large-scale subject like this, and further reading can be used to list a few select works that were not included, but may be useful. I think the breadth of sourcing in this article is good. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there is at least one book-length source that we are not listing here: Debnath's The Legacy of Leonhard Euler (Imperial College Press, 2010). According to the review at MR2572971 it is best avoided, so it is good that we are not using it as a reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm glad David Eppstein made note of a source we should not use. If consensus is to leave these in Further reading, then I won't object. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there is at least one book-length source that we are not listing here: Debnath's The Legacy of Leonhard Euler (Imperial College Press, 2010). According to the review at MR2572971 it is best avoided, so it is good that we are not using it as a reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree - I looked at this earlier and thought it was fine. It's generally impossible to work in every single major work on a large-scale subject like this, and further reading can be used to list a few select works that were not included, but may be useful. I think the breadth of sourcing in this article is good. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I already made a pass through this limiting the Further reading section to reliably published book-length sources primarily about Euler, so yes, they are high-quality sources. (I just removed one that was added yesterday that was not book-length.) It should not be necessary to use all such sources as references in the article; what is important is that we cover the material about the subject in a verifiable way, not that we make excuses to shoehorn-in references. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do not understand the purpose of
removing explanations of what [a] publication is
. To my eye, that just takes that section of the article more towards being a list and less like prose, making it less informative. Explaining what a publication is at the place where it is mentioned makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm at keep now. There's still a bit left to do, but the issues do not seem to be major. I think this is pretty close to the FA criteria now, and the sourcing issues seem to have been resolved. Not perfect, but good enough. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
William Tecumseh Sherman
- Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11
Review section
This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.
- Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
- Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
- The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances
While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.
- I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.
- I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.
- I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good (unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: There's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sections, especially in the Historiography section. The last edit to this article was two weeks ago. Have improvements stalled? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Should we just get rid of the Historiography section? It's one of the things that were added after the FA promotion and which may not have been up to the same standard. The article is already very long, and all of the detail about the various editions of Sherman's memoirs and correspondence may not be necessary. Moreover, the start of that section is not well referenced, not well integrated with the rest of the article, and perhaps too opinionated for Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Review by Z1720
@Eb.hoop2 and Hog Farm:, I am going to conduct a copyedit and review of the article. I will post questions and comments below if I feel like I can't fix them on my own. Let's see if we can get this out of FAR!
- "Sherman embarked from New York" is this New York State or New York City?
- "Sherman, along with Ord, assisted in surveys for the sub-divisions of the town that would become Sacramento." This needs a citation or to be removed.
- "In 1874, with Sherman having become world-famous, their eldest child, Marie Ewing ("Minnie") Sherman, also had a politically prominent wedding, attended by President Ulysses S. Grant and commemorated by a generous gift from the Khedive of Egypt. (Eventually, one of Minnie's daughters married a grandson of Confederate general Lewis Addison Armistead.)[20] Another of the Sherman daughters, Eleanor, was married to Alexander Montgomery Thackara at General Sherman's home in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 1880." This seems like a lot of extra information about his kids. Should this be summarized? Why is it important in Sherman's article that Minnie had a prominent wedding, and that one of her daughters married a descendant of Armistead?
- "and he relocated to New York on behalf of the same bank. When the bank failed during the financial Panic of 1857, he closed the New York branch." New York state or New York City?
- "He received a telegram summoning him to Washington on June 7." Who summoned him? Why?
- I think the article needs more information about the First Battle of Bull Run. The article alludes to a Union loss, possibly due to Sherman's decisions as a military officer, but this is not sufficiently explained.
- For the Vicksburg section, it starts with a long blockquote. Can this just be summarized and used as prose?
- "generally regarded as a politically motivated distraction from the effort to take Vicksburg" regarded by whom?
- I have removed this statement, as I'm not convinced that it's necessarily accurate. Sherman thought it was worthwhile, and the Miller 2019 source, which is one of the best sources on Vicksburg published in the last few years, notes that the Union admiral in the theater at the time (David Dixon Porter) also approved, that Grant was convinced of its value, and that taking Arkansas Post removed a sizable Confederate post in their rear that could have caused problems later. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- " According to military historian Brian Holden-Reid, Sherman finally "had cut his teeth as an army commander" with the Jackson Expedition." The jargon of "had cut his teeth" needs to be explained.
That takes me to Chattanooga. I'll continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2: - I recently picked up a book about Sherman's March to the Sea, which will hopefully be helpful for this. I probably can't solve the Bull Run one with the sources I have, though. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't think that Bull Run calls for more information in this article. Sherman was not a leading commander in that battle. He was at the head of one of the four brigades in one of the five divisions in one of the two units of the Union army in the field (see First Bull Run Union order of battle). The key points to convey are simply: a. that the Union suffered a disastrous defeat at Bull Run, b. that Sherman was one of the few Union officers to perform well under fire, and c. that the Union defeat left Sherman with considerable self-doubt and apprehension about the outlook of the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- As a non-expert in this topic or Sherman, I did not know what this battle was in connection to the Civil War. Furthermore, I did not understand Sherman's connection to this battle and was further confused when the article talked about Sherman's outlook of the war based on this battle. I think additional information on the battle and how it connects to Sherman's life is warranted to help give context to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Paul Kagame
- Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.
One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - whoah Buidhe, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, Buidhe. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- On hold to allow for more time for discussion at talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
- Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
- In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
- Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
- Obviously I'll be keen to hear Buidhe's views on what the next steps should be as well. — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
- @Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do:
Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether?
When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade.
Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)
Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)
Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why:
As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest"
With regards to vote-rigging he states the following:
Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control.
In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections [36](you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states:
Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power.
There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994"[37] by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper
Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including [38][39][40] (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) `
- Amakuru in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC. Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ack Amakuru, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:
- There are five uses of subsequently, almost always redundant (and they are here). Looking at one sample:
- Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
- left ... leaving ... vary the wording ...
- "subsequently" arrested ... could not have been arrested previously
- Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
Concern about representation of sources:
- Text says: Since the end of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Rwanda has enjoyed a close relationship with the English speaking world, in particular the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).
- The 2012 source mentions Clinton, saying that aid will be cut ... suggesting that large parts of this article may still be outdated or misrepresenting info based on current or broader sources (Clinton is not the US).
- as well as supporting development projects.
- Based on a primary source only, with no secondary source given. [41]
My concern is that wherever I look, I can find issues like this, so unless a top-to-bottom rewrite is undertaken, I think we are long past the time when we should proceed to FARC. Keeping an article of this nature updated requires constant vigilance, which this article does not seem to have had. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: - the point about the US is covered in the last paragraph of that section, detailing how they initially cut aid around 2012-13, but have subsequently revived it and remain close as of recently. And no problem with a primary source on a point of fact. But anyway, on the wider point, I'm obviously glad that this FAR has pushed me into updating this article, because I completely agree with the original assessment from l;ast year that it needed some updating based on later developments and the shift in scholarly POV. But I've done that, and I completely disagree that the idea that we now have to throw the whole thing away and start again. But anyway, so be it. I don't disagree that the prose could be polished in places and a few more updates made, but personally I'm satisfied that this article is a good and fair representation of this BLP and that's of more importance than whether it has a shiny gold star at the top or not. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the FAR process has resulted in considerable improvement to the article, which is great. However, if this article came up at FAC I would definitely oppose it on the basis that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article still has an overreliance on press articles compared to scholarship, which comes at the cost of privileging surface-level events to deeper analysis and understanding of underlying factors. I would also oppose on the lack of summary style and excessive detail in places. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
DelistThe article needs a thorough review of its prose to summarise and WP:SPINOUT longer sections. Discussion of Kagame's policies seems to be mixed with the Presidential section and should be given their own section. Amakuru had great edits on the article in April, but it still needs more work to bring it to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)- @Z1720: obviously it's clear that this article no longer has the support of the community as an FA, so I won't quibble on that point, but I'm curious why you think policies don't belong in the section on his presidency? Per other FAs such as Barack Obama, Richard Nixon etc, policies are generally included within that section in an article. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it's close, but I'm certainly leaning towards keeping. Paul Kagame is a current world leader, there is simply not enough written about him yet (and not enough known—consider what his policies and actions will influence in 50 years?) to split into sub articles, have a deeper understanding or even compare to figures like Nixon/John Adams. I am yet to see examples of the numerous pieces of relevant and significant literature that this article is supposably missing. The standards being held to this article are astronomical and not keeping with the reality of the situation; if this isn't an FA of the current leader of an African country, what is? Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
there is simply not enough written about him yet
Really? I made a long, incomplete, list of scholarly sources on the talk page. There's enough to say to fill several articles, which is why it's important to use summary style on the top level one. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)- Yes really, "there is simply not enough written about him yet to... have a deeper understanding". What are these pertinent comments and observations that the article is missing? Are we sure these sources do not just repeat information already present? And are we sure that they offer unique insights that are notable enough to even include? Just because there are unused sources is not a fault in itself, notwithstanding the question as to if they will add anything in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article would look quite different if you started over again with the scholarly sources and used news only to flesh out details if necessary. Different emphases, coverage of different topics, deeper analysis of certain topics that are not covered in news with omission of surface-level information that doesn't belong in this article. To cite just one example, Waldorf discusses how the RPF strategy to maintain its power is to offer rewards to a larger segment of the population rather than relying on political repression alone. The article gives a decent overview of many of the relevant policies, but it does not explain why they were decided upon or what purpose it serves. So it cannot be considered to meet FA criteria 1b or 1c. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24 and Buidhe: This process started with the request to update with latest literature, and make sure that the subject was presented from a neutral point of view. I spent considerable time doing that, with (per the original suggestion) strong reference to the Caplan paper, which is one of the latest balanced reviews out there and highlights all the major question marks around Kagame while also noting his achievements. All that is in the article, which now presents the timeline of his life with appropriate caveats everywhere regarding the different viewpoints. As I said before, you could read the latest book by Linda Melvern and you'd think Kagame's a saint, or alternatively you could read the latest book by Judi Rever or Michela Wrong and think he's the worst tyrant ever. This article doesn't take either of those two sides, as indeed it shouldn't per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and I'm just glad that someone has finally come out to defend it. That's not to say that it's perfect of course, but the goal of FAR is to save the star if possible; and the proposed solution of removing the election campaigns, despite the significant coverage they received, isn't IMHO the answer. — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- The article would look quite different if you started over again with the scholarly sources and used news only to flesh out details if necessary. Different emphases, coverage of different topics, deeper analysis of certain topics that are not covered in news with omission of surface-level information that doesn't belong in this article. To cite just one example, Waldorf discusses how the RPF strategy to maintain its power is to offer rewards to a larger segment of the population rather than relying on political repression alone. The article gives a decent overview of many of the relevant policies, but it does not explain why they were decided upon or what purpose it serves. So it cannot be considered to meet FA criteria 1b or 1c. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes really, "there is simply not enough written about him yet to... have a deeper understanding". What are these pertinent comments and observations that the article is missing? Are we sure these sources do not just repeat information already present? And are we sure that they offer unique insights that are notable enough to even include? Just because there are unused sources is not a fault in itself, notwithstanding the question as to if they will add anything in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I struck my delist opinion above, and I'll take a look at this in the coming days. If I don't respond in a week, please ping me as I probably forgot. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry it took so long to take a look at this. I posted comments and questions on the article's talk page, and that is where I will do my review to avoid making the FAR co-ordinators read all of my comments. Please respond to comments there. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Chinua Achebe
- Notified: Scartol, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nigeria, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Igbo, 2021-02-16
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are citation concerns from May 2020, an overreliance of the Ezenwa-Ohaeto source and bloated sections like "Influence and legacy" and "Masculinity and femininity". Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC No engagement, 23 cn tags. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - No significant engagement, significant work needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
Delist- lots of work needed, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)- Delist - per above -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait - The issues above are being dramatized, this article is pretty close to FA standard. I want to get around to adding some refs to missing places and fix up other issues. I would ask that the coords hold on this. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Once the article is fixed up, please ping me and I will conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, Aza24.. I just don't have time for Wikipedia these days but I would hate to see this article get delisted. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here, Aza24? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I've dealt with all the cn tags (that were there when I got there—there appears to be an IP addressing some) except two thus far. I will note that I found it rather concerning that almost all of the tags were faulty ones; placed on lines that were in fact sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph (I have, regardless, added additional/duplicate citations for these). I will also note that I checked Achebe's Oxford Bibliography entry and it seems that Ezenwa-Ohaeto is currently the most thorough source on his biography—and (because of this) one can see that almost no Ezenwa-Ohaeto refs are used in the style section. Additionally, the supposed "length" issue commented below the FARC section has not been brought up by a single editor (??). It is somewhat concerning that three experienced editors were so quick to vote "delist", and equally so that none of the issues were properly evaluated. I still have some more work to do, the holdup was due to me reading a few chapters on Achebe... Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: I placed many of the cn tags that you fixed. When I reviewed the article, the prose contained many one-sentence paragraphs that were uncited, so I tagged them. Another editor merged the paragraphs together but kept the cn tags as the reference at the end of the new paragraph might not verify the information that was merged together. I am happy that most of the cn issues have been addressed. I don't mind removing duplicate references (and I actually prefer this, as footnotes distract the reader.) The length issues concern some sections that are very large, including the "Masculinity and femininity" section (especially the second paragraph) and the "Influence and legacy" sections. I recommend that someone familiar with this person review the article to try to more effectively summarise the article in the bloated parts. I am happy to re-review and copyedit once these are complete. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still working Casliber. I'm yet to finish cleaning the life section yet, and have just gotten (like the day before yesterday) access to some sources through resource request, to hopefully diversify the citations in the biography. I know you guys are trying to keep the process moving, but I only really started editing on May 2nd (though I briefly cleaned up some things on April 23rd), so any lenience—if possible—would be much appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping; I've gone through most of the life section and restructured/reorganized the sources. I'm yet to throughly go through 1.6–1.9 or the Influence and legacy section, which I hope to get to this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Nikkimaria, I do want to continue work on Achebe—which I think is rather close—but I'm hoping to focus on the core contest until it ends on June 15th, would that be OK? Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: now that Core Contest is over, how are things looking here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Nikkimaria, I do want to continue work on Achebe—which I think is rather close—but I'm hoping to focus on the core contest until it ends on June 15th, would that be OK? Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping; I've gone through most of the life section and restructured/reorganized the sources. I'm yet to throughly go through 1.6–1.9 or the Influence and legacy section, which I hope to get to this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
British Empire
Time to close this?
Either delist or don't, but you - the community of editors running the FAR process - need to decide what you want to do. You're pulling in different directions. Roughly in chronological order we've had the following suggestions:
- 1) POV content: The FAR process was started by a user who wanted to insert value judgements on the British Empire having failed to convince others his cherry-picked sources were representative;
- 2) MOS compliance: Most of the initial suggestions by the community on this page focused on style (mostly actioned?);
- 3) New content: A few editors have suggested adding material on aspects of the BE they consider to be important despite (a) reliable sources generally not focusing on them and (b) doing so would massively lengthen the article;
- 4) Copyediting: And lately we've had editors suggesting we cut material because the article is already too long.
I'm not pretending to be an academic expert with lots of titles and post-nominal letters, but I'm relatively well-read on this subject and can spot when others are not. Some of the suggestions made during this process may be well-meaning, but most of those under (1) and (3) are incompatible with Wikipedia's core policies and the MOS. The FAR process should be leading us towards greater compliance with the core policies, not away from them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I generally agree with this. While I see no issues in the article with points 1) and 2), it really looks like there's no real consensus on whether or not 3) and 4). Discussion has been going on for months with no real headway. I don't know what the "no consensus" result for FAR is, but @WP:FAR coordinators: may want to consider whatever the no consensus result is, as it doesn't look like a consensus is likely to form either way here in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- The "easy" was is to just conclude no consensus and delist, but that would almost certainly doom any broad article with even a hint of controversy. I have stayed at arm's length trying to look from afar. I'll try and read through in detail and conclude what outstanding issues are actionable and what aren't and where these are situated WRT consensus and policy. Might take a bit though..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cas. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can I just check what you just said @Casliber:, no consensus in the FAR process and the article would be delisted? That really does seem a charter for disruptive editors to run amok. Arguably the last two FAR have been about editors seeking to get their way to insert POV material into the article. I've been involved in putting a number of articles through FAR before now and I've always found the process to be helpful. But sadly I have found the process to be utterly demoralising this time and my enthusiasm for editing is once again waning. WCMemail 16:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: I'm not telling you anything new. All aspects of the featured article process are (and have always been) vulnerable to blackballing. It is (and has always been) up to coordinators to determine whether any outstanding issues/oppositions are valid. I was highlighting how vulnerable large/broad/possibly controversial articles are in all this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Right - digesting all this now....23:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can I just check what you just said @Casliber:, no consensus in the FAR process and the article would be delisted? That really does seem a charter for disruptive editors to run amok. Arguably the last two FAR have been about editors seeking to get their way to insert POV material into the article. I've been involved in putting a number of articles through FAR before now and I've always found the process to be helpful. But sadly I have found the process to be utterly demoralising this time and my enthusiasm for editing is once again waning. WCMemail 16:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cas. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- The "easy" was is to just conclude no consensus and delist, but that would almost certainly doom any broad article with even a hint of controversy. I have stayed at arm's length trying to look from afar. I'll try and read through in detail and conclude what outstanding issues are actionable and what aren't and where these are situated WRT consensus and policy. Might take a bit though..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
A no-con here should result in a de-list: if peer-reviewing editors don't agree the article meets FA standard, then it has failed the peer review and shouldn't keep that its current status. After reading the discussion and the article, I also support delisting as well, but that's separate to my point about a de-list being the necessary outcome jf this were closed as a no-con.
Regarding the objection to de-listing because editors aren't willing "to tell us [what] can be done or ... help out in making it happen"
, that's really an indication that the objections to FA status are deeper than surface fixes. As many have said, it's currently a list of historical facts and lacks coverage of the empire's political, social and economic systems. Some editors argued that these systems continuously changed and therefore dedicated sections discussing these topics would be inappropriate – change doesn't make these institutions/processes any less crucial to full coverage of the topic. They could be integrated into the chronological narrative, but are not. This requires someone sitting down and working methodically through the sources in a way that can't reasonably be done on-demand. To demonstrate how much work there is, here's a list of structural problems and omitted topics/issues/themes:
- Overly skewed towards historical events during and between the world wars and decolonisation (despite not covering decolonisation adequately). Dedicates the same amount of words to discussing a 30 year period as it does the preceding 100 years of the empire's height
- Three paragraphs on the Suez Crisis – there are far more valuable ways to use those words.
- Colonial administration not discussed (at all, really)
- No discussion of 'indirect' rule (co-opting local elites in order to rule indigenous populations, particularly in Africa, but elsewhere e.g. Malaysia too; there's extensive academic discussion on how British rule differed in this respect from more direct French or German rule)
- Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate:
- No mention of the princely states
- No mention of the Indian Civil Service
- Social issues not discussed:
- As mentioned above, colonial police forces not mentioned (47,196 results on JSTOR for "British empire colonial police")
- Discussion of white settler minorities absent (no mention until legacy section)
- No mention of Anglo-Indians
- Settler/native social dynamics not mentioned
- Cultural impact of settler minorities not mentioned
- Mass migration of colonial British subjects overlooked (one sentence in legacy deemed adequate)
- Trade only mentioned in the sections covering the empire's early history, no coverage of imperial trade/economics
- Imperial Preference not mentioned
- Political debate over tariffs vs. free trade, the main political issue within British and imperial politics in the early 20th century, not mentioned
- Causes of decolonisation not fully explained
- Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned
- Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many
- Highly notable controversies mentioned in any modern coverage of the British Empire, such as the Bengal Famine and the Second Boer War concentration camps missing, although to its credit the lesser-known Mau Mau uprising camps are covered.
- The impact of decolonisation on the social and political structure of the decolonised countries is not mentioned/summarised, despite a wealth of academic literature on this.
- Military issues not discussed. Gurkhas? Gunboat diplomacy?!? (my jaw dropped with that one) Maxim gun? Fuller discussion of the role of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?
My concerns, just like those of others, are to do with major omissions and systemic bias that can't be fixed without someone putting in a lot of hard graft. I'm keen to put this on my to-do list and work cooperatively with other editors to get this back to FA when my current real life and on-wiki backlogs clear, but future work is quite possibly a long-term project beyond the scope of this FARC. Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I might as well dump this all on the talk page to hopefully start discussions on some of these things. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I generally agree with the omissions raised above. (I've made similar points in my comments). Essentially, this article functions as a timeline, with the rebuttal to these suggestions being that because the Empire did not function uniformly across time, it should only consist of a timeline. I don't buy that argument, and think that we should indicate to the readers that the Empire didn't function that way. The rebuttal to this is that there's isn't room, to which the reply is that the excess material (such as the bloat in the Suez crisis stuff) should be moved to a new subarticle, likely at History of the British Empire. For some reason, the splitting off does not want to be done, and instead we wind up with a standstill here, with this functioning as a glorified timeline. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- More of the same. Someone has a quick skim and decides it doesn't mention the things they think are important without offering any assessment of whether reliable sources treat them as deserving significant weighting. Maybe previous editors over the last 20 years have somehow misread those sources. Maybe they missed 47,196 references to 'colonial police'; maybe they missed the chapters on 'Imperial Preference' or the Bengal Famine. Or maybe they didn't and maybe those sources don't consider such issues to require significant coverage: Colonial police don't seem to appear at all in any of the books on my shelf; 'Imperial Preference' gets mentioned twice in a highly rated 700-page book; Bengal Famine got a single line in some more "modern coverage". I guess the rebuttal to that would be that they're systemically biased? Just can't get reliable sources these days? Maybe I need to diversify my reading list?
- If someone is willing to put the time in and provide an assessment of whether the topics listed are actually as important - across the range of reliable sources - as some editors think then I'm sure we'd all be willing to offer constructive criticism on any new text they could offer. If not then just close this. I'm sure the world will survive without the little star. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- A "quick skim" isn't a fair reflection of the work I put into to preparing that list. I spent a whole day reading, and obviously that's just scratching the surface of what'll be required to assess how many of my illustrative concerns are borne out across multiple sources. But I'm confident enough that the general problem, lack of content on areas other than political/military history, is sufficient to fail FACRITs 1b and 1d, and most likely 1c by extension too. Yes, the problem is probably the books on your shelf, because the historiography has moved on over the last 20 years and what might've been considered sufficient 20 years ago is not by historians today. The article is heavily reliant on sources from the 1990s and 2000s, and while these are obviously important and valid sources, there's a dearth of academic literature post-2010. I'm confident scholarship has developed considerably, not least because I've read some of it myself, and books published in the last decade are just as valid as earlier ones – potentially more so, as they're more distant from events themselves (how many of those tomes were written by British historians who lived through decolonisation – perhaps that's a reason why decolonisation is given so much weight in the article compared to earlier eras)? Nick-D listed some more recent works above, I hope to do the same in a week or so on the article talk page. I'm not trying to strip the article of a star out of vindictiveness, I've taken these points to the talk page and will do my best to try and engage with feedback there. Jr8825 • Talk 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I generally agree with the omissions raised above. (I've made similar points in my comments). Essentially, this article functions as a timeline, with the rebuttal to these suggestions being that because the Empire did not function uniformly across time, it should only consist of a timeline. I don't buy that argument, and think that we should indicate to the readers that the Empire didn't function that way. The rebuttal to this is that there's isn't room, to which the reply is that the excess material (such as the bloat in the Suez crisis stuff) should be moved to a new subarticle, likely at History of the British Empire. For some reason, the splitting off does not want to be done, and instead we wind up with a standstill here, with this functioning as a glorified timeline. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I might as well dump this all on the talk page to hopefully start discussions on some of these things. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Starting of with just one example "British empire colonial police". Please tell us what you mean by this comment. WCMemail 15:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you on that in a new section on the article talk page in a few days, if you don't mind. Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I'd like you to do it now actually. I'll start, there was no "British empire colonial police", there was no such thing. Each individual colony for want of a better phrase had it's own police service. There is no mention of a "British empire colonial police" because there wasn't one. WCMemail 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you can't demand that I dig out the sources necessary to demonstrate the importance of an issue on the spot, or characterise my real life commitments as "disruptive", as you did on the talk page. I'm a volunteer just like you, and I'm trying pretty hard to cooperate. I've been putting off my IRL work to respond to your points over the last hour or so, but I can't do keep putting if off any longer so I really must go. I will try to give you a proper response as soon as I'm able to. Jr8825 • Talk 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really should be working, but I just wanted to add that I'm finding your tone, particularly on the article talk page, quite offensive and unpleasant. I never suggested there was some kind of single unified police force. My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- As you yourself pointed out comment on content not editors. There is no tone in a textual communication and I'll draw your attention to the note I maintain on the top of my talk page:
- I think I'd like you to do it now actually. I'll start, there was no "British empire colonial police", there was no such thing. Each individual colony for want of a better phrase had it's own police service. There is no mention of a "British empire colonial police" because there wasn't one. WCMemail 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you on that in a new section on the article talk page in a few days, if you don't mind. Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
“ | As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting. | ” |
- I can't comment on the inference you decide to infer from my comments but so far our interaction doesn't look like you're assuming good faith.
- You've made a number of assertions that your list was a result of detailed work and consideration of sources and took issue when another editor suggested it was the result of a skim read. And yet when challenged it seems you haven't done the work to demonstrate the importance of an issue when asked, which rather does suggest your list was the result of a bit of a skim read and there is no substance to it; somewhat amplified by your comment "My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire". We are guided by what reliable sources say not editor's suspicions. It's no wonder that editors who've put in hours of work already are frustrated by these well meaning suggestions and yet still you can't even begin to suggest how we square the circle of expanding the article to cover additional topics with the suggestion the article is already too long. WCMemail 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
And yet when challenged you've not been able to sustain them. Lets go through them one by one:
- Suez Crisis - three paragraphs is over coverage. Fundamentally I disagree, Suez resulted in a national humiliation and marked a transition between the old world order of European Empires and the domination of the US/USSR. As such it does warrant such attention.
- Colonial administration: We don't discuss it at length within the article and that is not unusual for an overview of the British Empire. We do however wlink to articles that do explain the differences. It would difficult to distil this down to the necessary level for an overview.
- Indirect rule. As above.
- Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate. This isn't appropriate for an overview - why pick out India in particular, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong or my personal favourite Sarawak.
- Social Issues:
- Colonial police, which as I've already noted there wasn't a colonial police service. Again how do you in an overview explain in an Empire as diverse as the British Empire how individual police services were organised.
- Anglo-Indians - why just Anglo-Indian? What made you pick this one out?
- Settler/native social dynamics. Ok given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits? It's a topic worthy of a multi-volume series.
- Cultural impact? Again given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits?
- Mass migration? We do cover it but this being an overview, its of necessity very simplified and abstract,.
- Trade
- Imperial Preference. Barely mentioned and little more than a stub of an article, which indicates that perhaps not covering it is not inappropriate.
- Tariffs vs Free Trade. Personally I think we have the balance right for an overview. I don't see general works on the British Empire giving much attention to this.
- Causes of decolonisation not explained. Fundamentally disagree, this is explained and explained well.
- Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned. So what, this is the kind of detail that you have to prune in an overview.
- "Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many" Then you've skim read. The article mentions anti-colonial movements, the USSR, the Cold War, the anti-Japanese guerilla movements turning against the British etc. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
- Controversies. No, we do cover various controversies in the British Empire, we simply can't cover every single one in depth.
- Impact of decolonisation. We do cover this in a manner commensurate for an overview. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
- Military issues? Really on the one hand we're being criticised that this article concentrates too much on military history.
In summary, I've looked at your list. Many of the criticisms I don't accept as valid as the topic is already covered in a manner commensurate with the level of coverage expected in an overview. Others are diving down into a level of detail that is inappropriate or you're asking for coverage of topics too complex to cover in an overview. WCMemail 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to respond point by point. I think it's helpful to see how much disagree – the solution will have to be discussions of each separate point on the talk page, comparing notes and sources, as I work through it all over the coming weeks. Jr8825 • Talk 20:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay - I've read the discussion and compared the British Empire article from October 2020 till current:
Trying to keep reviewer and coordinator hats separate, which is a challenge.
I can see the writers have made some concessions - WRT peaceful 20th century transitions not being so peaceful, and mention of violence and disease being catastrophic to Australian indigenous people. Both are summarised as one-line changes, which I can live with as a concession - it is hard when trying to straddle the line between hagiography and critique and I guess it is safer to veer towards former (???)
I think more discussion about some India-related material is needed.
I can see some copyediting has taken place (which is good), but there has been opposition to more trimming on the talk page, which left Z1720 frustrated (not so good)
As the Requested Move failed, I guess we can assume that thee consensus was that the scope/balance of the current article is reasonable (and I guess cultural influences can be discussed in each of the subject nations). Hence opposes based on concern is more of a "history of..." can be excluded (I guess)
Which leaves the academic issues and length as outstanding. I think the scope is such that some laxity with length can be tolerated.
So - I will keep this open until September 30 and keep an eye on the talk page to determine the ironing out of consensus there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at the article, specifically with respect to the Indian empire. Famines in India, in the current thinking by economic historians (such as Tirthankar Roy) not popular authors of polemical trade books (such as Tharoor or Dalrymple or Mike Davis) were not all caused by the British. Most followed back-to-back crop failures. The British wrote the Indian Famine Code of 1880 which became the template of famine preparation and management for the next 100 years (by the UN agencies and others). The concept of entitlements, quantified 100 years later by Amartya Sen was implicit in the Indian Famine Commission report of 1880. Here is a poignant description.
The flip side is that no Briton ever died of starvation during a famine in India, only Indian peasants (usually without land as the quote above suggests) did. So as there are two months, per Casliber, I'm going to try and revise the article for what some see the imbalance. I would request though that editors not spout names of authors. If you have a genuine criticism, paraphrase it in words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)The first effect of a drought is to diminish greatly, and at last to stop, all field labour, and to throw out of employment the great mass of people who live on the wages of labour. A similar effect is produced next upon the artisans, the small shop-keepers, and traders, first in villages and country towns, and later on in the larger towns also, by depriving them of their profits, which are mainly dependent on dealings with the least wealthy classes; and, lastly, all classes become less able to give charitable help to public beggars, and to support their dependents. Such of the agricultural classes as possess a proprietary interest in the land, or a valuable right of occupancy in it, do not require as a rule to be protected against starvation in time of famine unless the calamity is unusually severe and prolonged, as they generally are provided with stocks of food or money, or have credit with money-lenders. But those who, owning only a small plot of land, eke out by its profits their wages as labourers, and rack-rented tenants-at-will living almost from hand-to-mouth, are only a little way removed from the class of field-labourers; they possess no credit, and on them pressure soon begins.
- Even famines conventionally laid at the doorstep of the British, such as Great Bengal famine of 1770 (whose lead I am currently revising with citations and quotes with a view to expanding the article) have undergone reevaluation in the recent literature. El Niño has played a much bigger role in Indian famines than hitherto thought. It is not as if India had no famines before the British, only no (or minimal) indigenous records. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- One controversial event I have just realized we haven't discussed yet is the Irish famine. It is mentioned in the article but there is no discussion about its causes. What is your/Wiki-Ed/Wee Curry Monster's opinion on that?--Quality posts here (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Quality posts here: - there's not really much point discussing our own views as editors, because we're obviously going to disagree (as can already be seen above). It's more helpful if you could provide the sources that support what you think should be included. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- One controversial event I have just realized we haven't discussed yet is the Irish famine. It is mentioned in the article but there is no discussion about its causes. What is your/Wiki-Ed/Wee Curry Monster's opinion on that?--Quality posts here (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even famines conventionally laid at the doorstep of the British, such as Great Bengal famine of 1770 (whose lead I am currently revising with citations and quotes with a view to expanding the article) have undergone reevaluation in the recent literature. El Niño has played a much bigger role in Indian famines than hitherto thought. It is not as if India had no famines before the British, only no (or minimal) indigenous records. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Casliber mentioned my frustrations with a copyedit above. My assessment of the conversations is that there is consensus that there are places in the article that can be trimmed, but disagreement on what exactly or how much. On the article's talk page, an editor suggested that the post-WWII era might be a good place to start (specifically the Hong Kong transfer section). Unfortunately, no one stepped up to lead in this effort, including me. I am willing to do a copyedit and review of the article again, starting with post-WWII, if other editors are willing to answer questions that will arise and fix things that I do not have the specialty or time to do myself. Anyone interested in joining me in this? Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720: give me a week (until Sat 15th), and I'll happily lend a hand. As you may have seen on the talk page, I'm minded to create a shortened version of the article in my sandbox by cutting the details I think are extraneous and summarising sections of prose I think are overlong, so that we have something to compare with the existing text and can move on to the more practical task of quibbling over specific wording/details. I'm keen to research and write potential additions to broaden coverage on other aspects of empire, but I'm concerned about resistance to change and can't see how additions can be discussed without first demonstrating where the space for them would come from. If you have another approach in mind let me know. Jr8825 • Talk 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jr8825: I agree with your assessment that information cannot be added without analyzing what from the article can be trimmed or deleted. Ping me when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Before you start ripping out sections of the article and discarding them, you might like to consider that the article has stood the test of time and over 20 years the wording has been picked over, repeatedly re-appraised, rewritten and whilst it might not be perfect you should be cautious about making sweeping changes. If you want support with copy editing fine, there are already people willing to help. But I note that some of the proposed changes I've already reviewed and many are not suitable and from the last copyedit 3 proposals were simply incorrect. I also note that we're still waiting to see what FAR can offer and how to resolve what are contradictory positions. And no this isn't resistance to change, its a concern about getting the balance right. If you want to start firing off questions, fire away. I would imagine @Wiki-Ed: is keen to pitch in too. WCMemail 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK so here are it's a week later and nothing. Which pretty much summarises this FAR, lots of well meaning commentary, much of it impractical and fundamentally contradictory. As I noted earlier, in the past I've always found FAR a useful process, this FAR has been awful, simply awful. WCMemail 07:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: I'm now working on this – I began reading the books and journal articles I'll need to go through yesterday. For what it's worth, I've put this ahead of the other on-wiki tasks I was working on to try and address my concerns within the extended time period Casliber has offered. I expect it will take some time before I'll be ready to bring suggestions to the talk page for both what can be cut/shortened and what text can take its place to address my concerns – it might take only a couple of days but I can't give an estimate. I have to say that the more I read, the move confident I've become about the problems I raised above (incomplete coverage of the topic, systemic bias). You said above that you think the majority of my concerns are invalid, so this looks like a content dispute to me. I hope you'll engage with my suggestions so we can find compromises which reflect the sources, which I think reflect some of the concerns raised by other reviewers here as well. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to consider confirmation bias, if you start research with a predetermined outcome then you will subconsciously only pick out those elements of texts that support your hypothesis. As to incomplete coverage, I did already respond to those, so if you think I'm wrong it's up to you to convince myself and other editors differently. To do that you have to engage with other editors, not work on your own as you imply you're doing. I will of course listen to your suggestions but at the same time you have to square the circle that the two main comments in this FAR are mutually incompatible. WCMemail 14:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster: I'm now working on this – I began reading the books and journal articles I'll need to go through yesterday. For what it's worth, I've put this ahead of the other on-wiki tasks I was working on to try and address my concerns within the extended time period Casliber has offered. I expect it will take some time before I'll be ready to bring suggestions to the talk page for both what can be cut/shortened and what text can take its place to address my concerns – it might take only a couple of days but I can't give an estimate. I have to say that the more I read, the move confident I've become about the problems I raised above (incomplete coverage of the topic, systemic bias). You said above that you think the majority of my concerns are invalid, so this looks like a content dispute to me. I hope you'll engage with my suggestions so we can find compromises which reflect the sources, which I think reflect some of the concerns raised by other reviewers here as well. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK so here are it's a week later and nothing. Which pretty much summarises this FAR, lots of well meaning commentary, much of it impractical and fundamentally contradictory. As I noted earlier, in the past I've always found FAR a useful process, this FAR has been awful, simply awful. WCMemail 07:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Before you start ripping out sections of the article and discarding them, you might like to consider that the article has stood the test of time and over 20 years the wording has been picked over, repeatedly re-appraised, rewritten and whilst it might not be perfect you should be cautious about making sweeping changes. If you want support with copy editing fine, there are already people willing to help. But I note that some of the proposed changes I've already reviewed and many are not suitable and from the last copyedit 3 proposals were simply incorrect. I also note that we're still waiting to see what FAR can offer and how to resolve what are contradictory positions. And no this isn't resistance to change, its a concern about getting the balance right. If you want to start firing off questions, fire away. I would imagine @Wiki-Ed: is keen to pitch in too. WCMemail 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jr8825: I agree with your assessment that information cannot be added without analyzing what from the article can be trimmed or deleted. Ping me when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd recommend keeping it as a Featured Article. Frankly I can imagine if you gave a dozen highly-knowledgeable people the ability to write this article, there could be a dozen very different articles that could reach the FA bar. No article covering this topic is going to be what each person thinks it should be. And that's okay. I rather like the article. I do think the Suez coverage is too long--even if you consider it a turning point in the history of the BE, we don't need that level of detail to understand why it is a turning point IMO. But that's a nit. Overall the article is great. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)