- 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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. 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, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—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. Do not use graphics or complex 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. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. 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:
| ||||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
Corinna
- Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Corinna is, after Sappho, the ancient Greek woman poet with the most surviving fragments, so we know almost nothing about her, rather than absolutely nothing. Three fairly substantial fragments of her poetry survive, and her works preserve versions of Greek myths not otherwise attested. Despite this, the main scholarly interest in Corinna over the past century has been the surprisingly contentious debate about when she actually lived – despite this being the one fact about her life which is unanimously agreed upon by the ancient sources!
I brought Corinna up to GA back in 2019; this year I submitted it for peer review and got helpful comments from Mujinga, SusunW, Kaiser matias, and Tim riley. As far as I can tell, I have read nearly every piece of English-language scholarship about Corinna written in the past century, and I think the article is now ready to be examined at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
image review
- File:Frederic_Leighton_-_Corinna_of_Tanagra.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Statue_of_Corinna_(Revue_archéologique_1898_32,V).jpg
- File:Stückelberg_Myrthis_und_Corinna_beim_Töpfer_Agathon_1897.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- File:"CORINNA_(THE_LYRIC_MUSE)"_"WILLIAM_BRODIE"_from_-Sculptures_of_Andromeda,_the_Toilet_of_Atalanta,_Corinna,_and_a_Naiad-_MET_DP323119_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
TRAPPIST-1
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
So, this was already at FAC but failed b/c of lack of supports and some prose concerns so it went through a second peer review during which some prose work was done. This is a star which is noted for the presence of seven planets in a harmonic chain, and some of these planets may even be habitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Several of the diagrams would benefit from being scaled up, but this should be done using
|upright=
rather than fixed px size - Some images are missing alt text
- File:TRAPPIST-1_system_to_scale.svg should be cited to a non-circular source
- File:TRAPPIST-1e_Const_CMYK_Print.png: source link is dead
- File:Eso1733s_Artist's_impression_of_merging_neutron_stars.jpg appears not to be an ESO artwork - are we certain it would be covered by ESO's blanket license? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is the 14th most visited article on Wikipedia. This FAC is about about a year and a half in the making, and the article has been a GA since last June. Hopefully this nomination will have its supporters, but I know it already has at least one "oppose". Cheers! ~ HAL333 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let us do it! A lot of work has gone into the article. QRep2020 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- We don't count a BLP's assessment of their own biography, due to the obvious conflict of interest. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
Will look at this now. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are many duplicate links.
- There are a few instances where there are more than three footnotes in a row.
many of whom are in states in which he has a vested interest.
What does this mean?
Musk has also been described as having a "charm offensive" to woo China and its markets for Tesla.
How does this go under politics?- What is a registered independent? Seems oxymoronic to me, but maybe this is a thing in American politics.
In 2022, Musk said that he could "no longer support" the Democrats, ...
Do we know the reason he can no longer support the Democrats?
Musk criticized then-president Donald Trump for his stance on climate change and after joining Trump's two business advisory councils,[304][305][306] Musk resigned from both in 2017 in protest against Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.
Prose could be improved.and that COVID-19 were inflated.
This sentence doesn't really make sense.refused to close the Tesla Fremont factory in March 2020, defying the local shelter-in-place order. In May 2020, he reopened the Tesla factory, defying the local stay-at-home order, and warned workers that they would be unpaid and their unemployment benefits might be jeopardized if they did not report to work.
First sentence says the factory did not close, then the next sentence implies that the factory did close at some point. Also, did Musk or Tesla suffer any legal issues as a result of this.
- Fixed. And there were no legal issues.
Musk eventually bought and donated medical devices that hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines.
Seems like weasle words.In 2012, he announced a divorce from Riley. In 2013, Musk and Riley remarried. In December 2014, he filed for a second divorce from Riley; however, the action was withdrawn.
WP:PROSELINE.Musk has made multiple cameos and appearances in films...
Change this toMusk has made cameos and appearances in films...
Or is this saying he made multiple cameos and appearances in all the following films listed?- Link Yale University.
- Infobox image appears to have no alt text.
Ray Reardon
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC), Rodney Baggins
Nicknamed Dracula, Reardon was the dominant snooker player of the 1970s. He won six World Snooker Championships, and was the number one player in six of the first seven years of the snooker world rankings. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins.
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- Wikilink Monmouthshire? Done
- "was presented to him by Joe Davis" - maybe specify who Davis was (former world champion, etc) Done
- "A week later, at Pontins in Prestatyn, Wales, he retained the Professional title and won the Spring Open title" - these both took place at Pontins at the same time?
- I believe so – maybe Benny can check/confirm? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, ChrisTheDude. Yes, they did take place at the same time. 1975 was the second "Pontins Festival of Snooker" - this had both professional (eight invited players) and open pro-am (over 650 entrants) events. The professional event took place at the same time as the early rounds of the pro-am event - the professionals were exempted until the 5th round of the open. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe so – maybe Benny can check/confirm? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "He advised Ronnie O'Sullivan on the way to his 2004 World Championship victory, giving him psychological and tactical help" - O'Sullivan was already mentioned and linked, so no need to do so again Done
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Chris, tweaked article per your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Apollo 10
This article is about... The dress rehearsal for the lunar landing, which falls rather in the shadow of its famous successor, but was still important as blazing a path almost to the Moon. If this passes, all Apollo flights (not including Apollo 1) will be FAWehwalt (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow. What an effort getting all the Apollo missions to featured. Some comments to prove I read it:
- Sometimes metric is first, and sometimes imperial. Recommend standardising on metric.
- "NASA had planned for what steps needed to be taken" This seems a little convoluted for the purpose. Suggest something like "NASA had planned the steps that needed to be taken"
- "the crewed-flight test of the CM, was the "C" mission. The first crewed orbital test of the LM" Define and link command modukle and lunar module. I know you already did it in the lead, but the two are supposed to stand separately.
- "its success gave NASA the confidence to skip the "E" mission" You haven't said what that was.
- "the spacecrafts' trajectory " I think this should be "the spacecraft's trajectory".
- "General Sam Phillips" -> "Lieutenant General Sam Phillips"
- "On November 13, 1968, NASA announced who the crew of Apollo 10 would be" Well, yes, but they had been training together for longer than that. They had been announced as the backup crew for the second Apollo mission on 22 December 1966, then became the backup for the first mission on 9 May 1967. 1966 press releases1967 press releases1968 press releases (or Brooks, Gromwood and Swenson, p. 374)
- Link NASA, Apollo 11, crawler-transporter, crawlerway, Launch Complex 39B, mobile launcher platform, Saturn V, launch escape system, Universal Time, David M. Harland, Roger D. Launius, Robert Pearlman, Captain (United States O-6)
- The abbreviation LES is not defined
- "Desc. stg." given that we have plenty of room, I see no requirement fort the abbreviations. (Do pounds and kilograms need to be linked?)
- "where as" => "whereas"
- I would mention that Stafford retired as a lieutenant general; that is the highest rank any astronaut has ever reached
- The images in the gallery are very small. can we bump them up to 220px?
- Use {{cite news}} for fn 68, {{cite magazine}} for fn 72 and 75
- Since The New York Times is linked, should the Orlando Sentinel be also? And Forbes?
- Compare formatting of NASM with fn 48 and 61
- Move fn 91 into the bibliography.
- Swanson and Duke is not used in the article.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for another review, Hawkeye. I've handled some of these and will come back for the remainder later (unless Wehwalt beats me to it). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
BioShock 2
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
You're tasked with creating the followup to one of the most-acclaimed video games of all time. What do you do? In the case of 2K Marin, you create BioShock 2, an adroit sequel that arguably didn't get its due upon release. Article received a good article review by Etriusus and a line edit/review by Ovinus, so thanks to them for their input on this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the screenshot
- File:Bioshock2_cover.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Ceres (dwarf planet)
This article nearly won its previous FAC, but ran aground on the writing and style. Since then I and a fresh pair of eyes have given it a copyedit, and I think it's ready for another FAC. Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE to Coords: former featured article; if re-promoted, please adjust the placement and tally at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comments: Great article on the dwarf planet. That's being said, the article's images and image placement may need some work, one-line paragraphs should be merged, and there's some stuff that can be written more about (Why Ceres don't have a moon? Is Ceres seismically active? Does Ceres has a magnetic field? etc.) so I don't think the article should be promoted yet, but overall, good work on a Level 4 Vital article. You should be proud of your efforts and accomplishment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to answer why it doesn't have a moon; that's like asking why I don't have a sports car. Serendipodous 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur on that point. Regarding the magnetic field, as far as I know, it's not thought to have one [1], and the bow-shock event detected by the Dawn spacecraft is thought to be due to the solar wind impinging upon the transient exosphere [2][3]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. Take "Why Ceres don't have a moon?" as an example – why does Salacia and Orcus have a moon even though the parent body is less massive than Ceres? It may be because of their distance from the Sun, or their origin. I doubt that there haven't been any research done about the topic yet that would warrant inclusion into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It still sounds strange, because we can also ask "why Orcus don't have two moons?" or smth similar. I tried to find any paper that talks about hypothetical moon of Ceres, but didn't find anything significant except for thia paper Dawn mission's search for satellites of Ceres: Intact protoplanets don't have satellites. I think it can be included, though I'm not an expert on Ceres:
Examination of the physical properties of the 41 largest and most massive main belt asteroids suggests that large asteroids without satellites are intact and their interiors have internal strength. This is consistent with results from the Dawn mission at both Vesta and Ceres. Ceres' volatile-rich composition also is a likely contributor to both the absence of satellites at Ceres and of Ceres meteorites at Earth. These results suggest that collisional disruption creating rubble pile structure is a necessary condition for formation of satellites around main belt asteroids.
Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)- My bias is that one should explain why a body has a moon, rather than why it doesn't. Of course, if people have done studies, then we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It still sounds strange, because we can also ask "why Orcus don't have two moons?" or smth similar. I tried to find any paper that talks about hypothetical moon of Ceres, but didn't find anything significant except for thia paper Dawn mission's search for satellites of Ceres: Intact protoplanets don't have satellites. I think it can be included, though I'm not an expert on Ceres:
- I'm not sure that seismic activity has been studied apart from the cryovulcanism that the article already discusses, but I did a little work on the other topics mentioned. My standards for image selection and placement are very low, so somebody else ought to evaluate that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to answer why it doesn't have a moon; that's like asking why I don't have a sports car. Serendipodous 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I removed a line that was unreliably sourced; it's been restored with a {{citation needed}}, but I can't find any reliable source that could substantiate it or indicate that it's a sufficiently important datum to include. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The {{citation needed}} was filled in with a personal website, which I am highly doubtful of, and since the point is a really, really marginal one, I snipped it out again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Artem
Article is good, sources seems to be ok, will try to read thoroughly and comment later. At a first glance, 'Proposed exploration' seems odd, as it describes missions proposals for Vesta or just some asteroids, but not specifically a Ceres mission. More comments later. Artem.G (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some source checks:
- Ref 7 should be moved to notes; ref 14 - do you think it's reliable source? Looks self-published. Artem.G (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ref 17 can be cited properly, with authors (and maybe it can be swapped with some real paper, not with a conference summary?)
- Refs 30 and 31 should be formatted, can they be found online? Ref 35 needs ISBN. Ref 100 - can it be found online?
- Fixed. (except for some reason the format isn't recognising "et al.") Serendipodous 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The Boat Race 2022
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Posh Brit university canoes back on the Thames after Covid disruption. Yes, it's not the Super Bowl. The men got it all wrong but the women triumphed, depending on your preferred shade of blue. As I write "short" FAs, I expect this to be a very truncated process and look forward to addressing concerns with incredible speed and guile. And thanks in advance to those of you who make constructive comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- I think the first, or at worst the second, paragraph of the lead should mention who actually competes in the Boat Race. At present we don't find that out until the third para and even then for the women's race we are only told the winner, not anyone else who took part.
- "The women's senior race was umpired by John Garrett who rowed for CUBC" - you haven't used (or linked) the full names of the clubs in the body, only in the lead
- The key to the map should probably indicate that the county names shown are historic counties. Barnes, Putney, etc, haven't been in Surrey for decades, and Middlesex no longer exists at all.
- "He is a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - is there a way to re-word this to remove the present tense, so that it won't need updating when he's no longer with us (which I appreciate may be decades away, but it doesn't hurt to futureproof :-))
- "Each year before Christmas, each squad stages" - change the first word to "every" to avoid repetition?
- "and after a further blade clash, extended their" - not sure that comma needs to be there
- "following warnings to both crews from the umpire to avoid a clash, Style held" - same here. Is this a standard form? It looks a little odd to me but maybe that's just me.......
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review from Hawkeye7
- File:Oxford winning the 2022 Boat Race (cropped).jpg, File:Grace Prendergast (NZL) 2021.jpg, File:Mérite sportif vaudois 2014 - Barnabe Delarze.jpg, File:Ruder-EM 2016 55 (Simon Schürch cropped).JPG - CC 4.0 images by Wikimedians - okay
- File:Boat Race 2018 - Men's Blues Race (03).jpg - CC 4.0 image by Wikipedian - okay - but recommend dropping the "upright" parameter, as the image is not portrait mode
Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe it meets featured quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Angel Locsin
Having previously worked on two Filipino BLPs, I chose to work next on Angel Locsin, a Filipina actress whose career in film and television include portrayals of superheroines and mythological creatures before transitioning into well-received romantic dramas and comedies. I have given this article a major expansion early this year and I feel ready to bring this to FAC. FrB.TG has been so kind to provide his expertise in BLPs to help me prepare the article for this nomination, and has provided suggestions, improvements and copyedits to polish it to its current form. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from NØ
- If the mythological roles are in film and television as well, it might be better to write the second sentence as "She is known for her dramatic roles, and portrayals of heroines and mythological characters in film and television."
- Done
- "film and television" is repeated twice in the lead, so maybe the second usage could be trimmed.
- Done
- "the last of these is Locsin's highest-grossing release to date" - "these" could be replaced with "which" and the preceding semi-colon could be a comma
- Done
- Ref 4 should precede ref 8 in the sentence about her father's condition
- Fixed
- "She was then signed to a management deal with GMA Network" - Maybe say "She then signed a management deal with GMA Network"
- Done
- Since this is the English Wikipedia, I doubt many people would be able to understand the embedded external video and thus its usefulness. But I will leave this up to you.
- Now that you mentioned it, it makes perfect sense to just remove it.
- In the lead Darna is introduced as "the Ravelo Komiks Universe series" so this should be incorporated in the body as well.
- Added
- "described the production as "fresh" and "innovative"" - maybe the one-word quotes could be replaced by synonyms
- Done
- Any reason Nestor Torre Jr.'s full name is repeated?
- Just realized that, only full name on the first instance, should be fixed now.
- "and has been cited as one of the "greatest movie actresses" in the last decade" - attribution is always a good idea with claims of this magnitude
- Attributed the list to Yes! (Philippine magazine) which is published/relegated to it's online site PEP.
- FHM (magazine) seems to be a redirect so it could be replaced with a link to FHM.
- Fixed
- "From 2005 to 2016, Locsin was romantically involved with several high-profile personalities" - I would remove the word "several" here since it is subjective
- Done
- The paragraphs in the Personal life section could be merged since the second is currently too small and they seem to be thematically cohesive
- Done
- The release years for the films do not need to be repeated in the Acting credits and awards section as these are usually only introduced at first mention
- Done
- The article is grammatically perfect, well-researched and seems to present all viewpoints fairly (including her projects which received negative reviews), great work here! That will be all from me.--NØ 10:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
FrB.TG
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "She is known for her dramatic roles, and portrayals" - don't think that comma is needed
- Comma removed
- "She remained with of the series" - "with of"?
- Thanks for catching this, fixed now. Should be remained with the series
- "Locsin rejected the title role in television remake" => "Locsin rejected the title role in the television remake"
- Fixed. Thanks for catching this omission
- "Bayani San Diego of the Philippine Daily Inquirer drew similarities between [...] to that of" => "Bayani San Diego of the Philippine Daily Inquirer drew similarities between [....] and that of"
- Done
- "former midfielder Phil Younghusband" - I would say "former footballer Phil Younghusband" as people who don't follow football won't know what a midfielder is, and specifying his playing position is an unnecessary detail in this article
- Agreed and changed.
- That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful review ChrisTheDude. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sally Ride
This article is about Sally Ride, the third woman to fly in space. She is also the first astronaut known to have been LGBT (but not openly at the time of her spaceflight). The article is a popular one: it averages around 1,600 page views per day, and has been classified as a level 5 vital article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Kusma
I'll have some prose comments coming up soon, but I also see one "comprehensiveness" issue: her career as a physicist is not properly discussed in the body (all we have is "In 1989, Ride became a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and director of the California Space Institute."). The lead at least mentions "primarily researching nonlinear optics and Thomson scattering" but that is missing in the body. [4] [5] [6] are some of her articles that verify these research themes. It would be nice to know whether she stopped being a professor of physics at some point (it does appear she devoted herself more to outreach and popular science after a few years), whether she had PhD students etc. if this is known. (Depending on what sources can be found, I'd expect something between an extra sentence and an extra paragraph here, but there is currently an imbalance between how much we learn about her as an amateur tennis player versus how much we learn about her as a professional physicist). —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lead is a bit short and doesn't quite summarise the entire article.
- The lead was unchanged during my expansion of the article. I have added a bit more. Let me know if there is anything else that you think should be included.
- "former Women's Tennis Association player" why not simplify to "former professional tennis player"? (For a moment, I was wondering whether "Tennis Association" is a specific type of tennis, like rugby league and rugby union).
- Early life: link Presbyterian Church?
- "Her father served..." is followed by "he had gone" about a later period in his life. Tense seems off.
- The story about Swarthmore and homesickness for California would be easier to understand with a mention of the location of Swarthmore.
- "in those days before Title IX women's tennis was not well-supported at the college level" Even after reading up on what Title IX is, I am not certain that this is relevant here (was men's tennis well supported at Swarthmore?) Either drop Title IX or explain why it is relevant.
- The article explains that it increased funding for women's sports. It should be burned into the brains of American readers. Because they had to spend equal amounts on women's sports as men's, and colleges have to spend prodigious sums on gridiron football, which women do not play, vast amounts of money were released for other sports. The reference also places events in the social context of the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Her foray into professional tennis was unsuccessful; her whole body ached" what was the extent of this foray? So far we have been told that she had the aim to become a professional tennis player, but not that she did anything towards this goal. What made her body ache?
- mention who Billie Jean King is for the tennis-unaware
- Selection and training: no complaints here, nicely done.
- STS-7: not a fan of linking "[[STS-7|seventh]] Space Shuttle mission" and "[[STS-1|first]] Space Shuttle mission"; I would prefer to include "Space Shuttle mission" in the link. Alternatively, something like "first Space Shuttle mission (STS-1)" would also work I think.
- Was there an interesting reason why Kraft preferred Fisher?
- Could mention that the photograph was taken by a camera on SPAS-1.
- "the runways at KFC" isn't it just one? STS-7 tells us it was brand new.
- STS-41-G: The Crippen/quick turnaround story could be explained better (Crippen flew on both STS-41-C and STS-41-G but he seems to have been the only one on both of these?) Is the "crew training" discussed here the training for STS-41-G?
- I prefer "KSC" without definite article "the KSC" but both are fine. The article currently has both versions, please choose one consistently.
- "[Ride] immediately and gracefully began moving about" this isn't immediately after liftoff, but immediately after going into orbit?
- "manipulating the robot arm much faster than she had been trained" was the quick manipulation necessary for the shaking or was this just her showing off how awesome she was?
- "Getaway Special" mention that these were small experimental payloads made by outside groups?
- Cancelled mission: mention what time it was planned for, and that the Challenger disaster was in January 1986?
- Rogers commission: mention when the investigation happened?
- After NASA: "the end of the Cold War made this much less of an issue." but the Cold War hadn't yet ended in August 1989...
- As above, it would be nice to know more about her work as a physicist and whether she kept her position at UCSD.
- Mention what the position of NASA Administrator is (the second mention saying that it is the NASA administrator makes it sound like a much better position than some random mid-level administrator at NASA).
- "a member of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, an independent review" the committee is not a review, they just performed one.
- Awards: what is the "Lindbergh Eagle" and who awards it?
- First two paragraphs in this section could be combined.
- American Women quarters: appeared in March, needs to be updated
- In popular culture: lots of very dry sentences with very little meat, a rather boring read not providing much context other than "these cultural references exist". Is the Janelle Monáe song just called "Sally Ride" or is it actually about this Sally Ride? Is "Ride On" about Sally?
- External links: Festivals link is broken for me. Camps is a domain squatter. If you link to the archived version of Sally Ride Science instead of the current one at UCSD, mention that it is the archive and from when. Whole section needs a spring cleaning.
A quite enjoyable article about an important astronaut. I expect I will be able to support once some issues are addressed (but note that I have not done any source checking). —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good changes, but the nonlinear optics etc. from the lead that I mentioned at the top of the section are still not mentioned in the body. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- " The purpose mission deployed two communications satellites and the first Shuttle pallet satellite (SPAS-1). " Is "purpose mission" a thing?
- "Her second space flight was the STS-41-G in 1984, " it's the "the" before the mission designation that's bothering me here.
- "After the war he went to Haverford College on the G.I. Bill, where he earned a master's degree in education at the University of California in Los Angeles,[2]: 4–6 " "where" seems to be referring to "Haverford College", but the degree seems to be from UCLA. By the way, it's "University of California, Los Angeles". And it's double-linked.
- "Although Ride was rated number 1 at Stanford and Tyson was number six, the two played doubles together." Leaving aside the question of whether the "although" is justified, why "1" and "six"?
- "National Air and Space Administration (NASA)" AIR?
- "The crew presented Reagan" Whodat? Not linked or otherwise identified.
- "Once in orbit immediately and gracefully began moving about." Odd sentence.
- "She still performed her astronaut spouse duties for Hawley when he flew in space for the second time on STS-61-C in January 1986, which included the post-mission publicity tour." Can more be said about what these were? I imagine they did not include waiting behind a white picket fence and holding up signs "SO PROUD"?
- I have expanded on it. The inclusion of spouses in publicity tours etc dates back to the days of Project Mercury. I would hope it has been re-thought and no longer occurs. It must have been awful for them, but Ride's non-appearance would have too obvious, and questions would have been asked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "She was paid a professor's salary of $64,000 (equivalent to $140,000 in 2021) plus $6,000 (equivalent to $13,000 in 2021) as director of Cal Space, which employed 28 full- and part-time staff and had a budget of $3.3 million. (equivalent to $7 million in 2021).[37]" Do we need three inflation templates? Surely the reader will get the picture as to the current value of 1987 dollars with one.
- "She once again turned down an offer to become the NASA administrator, but served on the board of the National Math and Science Initiative in 2007 " Did Obama offer her the post? A year should be put in here, since you are going back from 2008 to 2007.
- Fortunately, we have an account from Lori Garver. Garver contacted Ride about whether she she would agree to have her name put forward, but Ride made it clear that she did not want the job. So there was no formal request from Obama. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Ride died on July 23, 2012, at the age of 61, in her home in La Jolla." I would probably say "at her home" etc.
Image review
- All pictures have appropriate permissions/licenses. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The images should have alt text. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Tahmasp I
- Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about... Tahmasp I, the second (and my favourite) Safavid Shah of Iran. The article has been under copy edit, and I had put it under a peer review (unfortunately, nothing came out of it) but I'm confidant that this article (unlike my other two unsuccessful nominees) is ready to promote as a Featured article. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
image review
- File:Tahmasp_I.png: why is this believed to be CC?
- It seems the person who cropped it from the original (which itself was a cropped version from this one), wanted to emphasis that they grant full permission for usage of the image, should I change it?
- Yes - a simple crop is unlikely to meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done
- Yes - a simple crop is unlikely to meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems the person who cropped it from the original (which itself was a cropped version from this one), wanted to emphasis that they grant full permission for usage of the image, should I change it?
- File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_TLS-2714-back.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Iran,_Qazvin,_Safavid_period_-_Shah_Tahmasp_I_(1514-1576)_Seated_in_a_Landscape_-_1917.1078_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.tif, File:Flag_of_Shah_Tahmasp_I.svg, File:Qazvin_-_Chehel_Sotun.jpg, File:Khalili_Collection_Islamic_Art_qur_0729_fol_1b-2a.jpg, File:Coin_of_Tahmasp_I,_minted_in_Shiraz.jpg
- Um, I don't really know what the tag for the original work is, can you please give me a link for an image that has one?
- Here are a couple of examples from current FACs: File:Sculpture_"Asia"_at_main_entrance_to_Alexander_Hamilton_U.S._Custom_House,_New_York,_New_York_LCCN2010720093.tif and File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done, though you might want to take a look to check of I've done anything wrong. Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here are a couple of examples from current FACs: File:Sculpture_"Asia"_at_main_entrance_to_Alexander_Hamilton_U.S._Custom_House,_New_York,_New_York_LCCN2010720093.tif and File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Um, I don't really know what the tag for the original work is, can you please give me a link for an image that has one?
- File:Shah_Tahmasp_holding_court,_attributable_to_Mu'in_Musavvir,_Safavid_Isfahan,_circa_1670_A.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Sueleymanname_nahcevan.jpg, File:Elkas_Mirza.jpg, File:Tahmasp,_Humayun_Meeting.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
First look by Johnbod
- The article is perhaps rather short for an FA on a 50 year reign.
- The English needs touching up.
- Lower down, there are overlong paras that need splitting.
- My interest and knowledge of T is as a patron of the Persian miniature - until he wasn't. The article doesn't seem to use any refs by art historians except Soudavar (and Canby, not used to ref material on art). "Tahmasp has been called the greatest Safavid patron" is true, but not best referenced to a general historian. Little about major commissions, or the artists he employed.
- Doesn't seem much on Persia's place in the developing Eurasian strategic balance over this long period.
Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
English interjections
This article is about interjections in the English language, words that most users of English Wikipedia use all the time but know little about. It has had good article status for roughly a year and is one of very few good articles dealing with a topic in linguistics. English grammars generally give very short shrift to interjections, but there's actually a good deal to say about them. I asked User:Jimfbleak to have a look to help me prepare the article for this nomination, and he has kindly made some helpful suggestions which have improved the article. Brett (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some parts of the article dont meet the FA inline citation requirement Buidhe public (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Featured article criteria 1c is usually interpreted to mean that all prose content in the article is supported by an inline citation, including at minimum one citation at the end of each paragraph and image captions that contain information besides identifying the subject of the image. The article currently doesn't make it clear what source supports content like the second sentence in the following paragraph:
Some verbs are formed from interjections meaning "utter the interjection", for example, he humphed and sat down or I shooed them out the door.[10] These can be distinguished from interjections by their ability to inflect for tense.
If there is no source that directly supports the content, it is original research which is not allowed (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Featured article criteria 1c is usually interpreted to mean that all prose content in the article is supported by an inline citation, including at minimum one citation at the end of each paragraph and image captions that contain information besides identifying the subject of the image. The article currently doesn't make it clear what source supports content like the second sentence in the following paragraph:
- The "Typical examples" table seems to be slightly messed up. "no" occurs twice, and the position/count of some of the less frequent interjections do not match the source. – Elisson • T • C • 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! The second no is due to the way the data is automatically tagged in the corpus. The first no is tagged as in interjection, while the second is tagged as an interjection or possibly an article (e.g., no bananas). Ideally, there would be a single no with 281,120 tokens + x% of 18,949 tokens, but x is unknown. As for the counts, the data was copied and pasted from the query results at the time so the discrepancy is not a typo. A possible explanation is that new texts were added to the corpus since the search was conducted.
- The token count isn't particularly meaningful in itself, so perhaps a good solution would be to replace the table with an ordered list. Thoughts? Brett (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see, though when I follow the reference I don't see a second "no" anywhere in the list. I was assuming the corpus had been updated until I noticed that the token count of many of the most frequent interjections had not been changed. I.e. how likely is it that new data was added that more than doubled the count for "o" while not adding a single "yes", "oh", or "ah"? Anyway, I agree that the count is not that important, but it's also not completely unimportant as it says something about the relative frequency of the most common interjections. I don't have a strong opinion, as long as the list does not contain two "no" (which will confuse people). :) – Elisson • T • C • 18:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56
- Mathsci (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of the most beloved, so here we try a third time. Thanks to all who commented and improved in the long article history. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is one of few cantatas that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash!. I asked Mathsci to do a third round, because he contributed most after the last nomination, but he was banned. - Today is the birthday of the conductor with whom I sang it. Those attending a memorial concert for him joined singing the closing chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
licensing concerns:
- File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here. All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- All of that would suggest the current licensing of CC BY-SA is not correct, so the tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course you can. Copyright on the composition and copyright on the typography are two different things. Without acknowledging the author of the typography and the license it is released under, these files are in violation of their license. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Musical notation is not text, and publishers get valid new copyright on new typography. If you are unaware of the difference between musical notation and text, please stay out of this discussion. See [7] for the author. There are two ways to rectify Mathsci's copyvio here, to properly follow the file's CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or to delete it. I feel too esteemed to add any templates, but may nominate for deletion if the false PD claim isn't corrected. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, let me expound a bit, as this is bugging me. Copyright, as the first sentence of our article about it says, is granted not just for work, but for creative work. Retyping is not a creative work. If the typist or the printer employs their creativity in retyping the Cantata, if they intentionally change a C# to a D here and a B to an A there ... it's just not the Cantata. It may be a closely related derivative work, but I don't see anyone claiming that is what happening here. As best I can tell, these are exact reproductions of Bach's composition of 1726, as published in 1831, as best the printer could manage it, correct? If so, the only creativity involved was choosing which font to use, and PD-text is quite clear, we, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, don't consider that single choice sufficient to establish copyright. And I'd say, neither do most courts, but as those of us in the US recently learned, relying on a court to continue ruling the way it has for the past many decades is not at all a matter of certainty! So the best we can do is rely on Wikimedia Commons rules, which are quite clear here. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of bachsoboe.de; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I will restore the license on the files, pending any discussion. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kusma: Done, all four files, also added acknowledgment of Markus Müller of https://www.bachsoboe.de/blog/2014/01/31/bwv-56/ under Bach in the Author slot. Satisfactory? I admit I would like to have the public domain for music typography discussion, since it seems likely we will have these issues again. Do you know where it's been discussed before? If not, will you join me at the Commons Village Pump for Copyright, and possibly invite other people who may be authoritative or at least knowledgeable? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem complex. Asking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_there_a_copyright_for_typography_of_sheet_music? I hope I explained the question well enough, but if I missed something, please do help. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of bachsoboe.de; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here. All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Brett
The Legacy section starts, "Raised in Alsace, the polymath Albert Schweitzer..." Unless being raised Alsace is somehow pertinent to the cantata, Bach, or the biography in ways that I'm missing, this should be cut. Brett (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- done, - hopefully most readers will known him anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment by VersaceSpace
Nothing major to add, as I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic, but I would move ref 1 out of the lead. Hopefully what it cites is inside the body, if not that's likely a separate issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment, but quotes have to be cited in the lead. - Fell free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Fe[e]l free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood
. Wise words! I'll be giving the article a full read at a later date, and giving my thoughts. What I will say prior to my absence is that I believe the lead is a bit long and includes some information that isn't of the utmost importance. An example: Bach not referring to his compositions as cantatas. Much less necessary (to me at least) is the one time he did refer to it as such. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem lead-worthy. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- It singles this one out, from his perspective, therefore it seems worth mentioning to me. But I'll see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Kusma
I think this may still need some source work and checks.
- I just read the "Recordings" section, where the sentence about "complete cycles" is unsourced (and quite unwieldy). You probably mean "The cantata was recorded before people like X, Y and Z did complete recordings of all cantatas".
- The recording section was in this article in detail, and was mostly placed in a separate article, as getting too heavy. What is left wasn't written by me, but I'll check. --GA
- The next sentence, "The earliest extant recording was a live concert performance ..." is sourced to a dead link, but it is archived. The source says "American baritone Mark Harrell is heard in a 1939 performance of Bach's Cantata No. 56, a performance that shows the big-scale influence of Mengelberg's interpretations of that composer." and says nothing about "earliest extant recording".
- archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA
- Just write only what you can verify from sources. Either just say "In 193x, it was recorded" or say something like "The earliest recording listed at ThatListOfBachRecordings is ..." Claiming this one is the earliest without a source saying so is WP:OR.
- archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA
- The sentence "The cantata is often coupled with Ich habe genug, BWV 82" is sourced to a review that only says they have been "frequently recorded in the past", not that they have been recorded together.
- What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA
- You could state that they have been recorded together eight times, out of X recordings listed at SomeGreatPlace.
- What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA
- The source for the following "bass cantata" sentence also mentions a fourth cantata. It is unclear to me whether these cantatas should be mentioned at all.
- The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA
- I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.
- This is about a church cantata. It seems noteworthy to talk about the other church cantatas, but less so for the one secular work that I see only that one time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.
- The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA
- What are the selection criteria for the list of recordings here versus those in the dedicated sub-article? Many of the entries appear to be unsourced.
- I don't know, Mathsci did it. We could drop the table completely, or add from the many recordings. --GA
Sorry, from just looking at this section I don't think the article is ready. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the "Poet and theme" section, I find the research by C. Blanken that is cited to be fascinating, but there's probably more that can be taken from her article, for example Birkmann's interest in the cross-staff as a mathematical/geodesic/navigational tool (pp. 25–28) could be joined to the mention in the next paragraph. The "cross staff" pictured here is not that tool.
- Yes. --GA
- I would put "The text is rich in biblical references" before "Birkmann's text alludes to Matthew's gospel"; this way is a bit redundant/repetitive.
- I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA
- Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.
- done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.
- I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA
- A lot of this is about the text, more than the "theme". "The final lines of the opening aria ("There my Savior himself will wipe away my tears") are repeated just before the closing chorale.", for example, is not "theme". Neither is the rebus on the title page. BTW, the source mentions that Bach used χ for the cross, but "On the title page [of BWV 56], Bach replaced the word "Kreuz" by the Greek letter χ" is not in the source given, which is about other cantatas.
- I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA
- I did not see that. Could you mention this in the caption? Or perhaps move the whole sentence into the caption if it is not sourced without the image?
- I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA
- Chorale: So apparently this part is not written by Birkmann? It could have been mentioned earlier that not everything is by him.
- It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA
- I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.
- For those readers, we have the links to Bach's church cantatas and Bach cantata. Please compare current FAs about Bach's cantatas, such as BWV 1 (2022) and BWV 165 (2015), - we can't repeat the basics in all 200 articles about his cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.
- It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA
- First performance: do we know in which church this was?
- Sorry, no. Bach digital has just Leipzig, same Dürr/Jones. --GA
I think I'll leave checking other sections to others. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I hope I could clarify some, and would be interested in how much table of recordings you'd want, now that we have the other article for them, for example, and how much more you'd like about the navigational instruments, which is one of the several meanings of cross staff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Only few replies (need to do a bit more for Alice Harnoncourt): used Wollny, made Ambrose external link. Will think about the others, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Offham Hill
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the sixth article I've nominated about an archaeological site; like most of the previous ones, this is about a causewayed enclosure in Sussex. Sadly the site has been almost completely destroyed, first by quarrying and then by ploughing, so the single excavation, in 1976, represents all we are ever likely to know about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Image review-pass Buidhe public (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Source for area?
- Added; it was cited in the body so I copied that cite up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a reason some short cites include full author name/initials and others only surname?
- Inability to check my own work seems the most likely reason. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- FN9? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. There are two Curwens with similar names, which is probably why I did that, but the other Curwen is not cited here so I've removed the first names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- FN9? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Inability to check my own work seems the most likely reason. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fn24: formatting doesn't match other multi-author refs
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is Sheridan 2011 or 2012?
- 2012. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- No citations to O'Connor 1977b
- Fixed; the material that should have been cited to that was incorrectly cited to James. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain what's going on with Drewett? It's an article but has other sources within it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes -- it's common in archaeological dig articles for the main citation to be to an article with a main author, but for that article to contain contributions relating to specialist areas -- molluscs, bones, pottery, flint -- which are individually credited inline with subheads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review; I think everything has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments: nothing much to say. A very well put-together piece of work and comprehensive as far as I can tell as a non-expert; it certainly tells me everything I want to know about the subject. Just to be pedantic:
- The use to which these enclosures were put has long been a matter of debate Suggest something like "the purpose of these enclosures" for simplicity's sake
- Yes, good idea. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking was listed as a scheduled monument doesn't make sense; listing and scheduling are two different statutory processes.
- I take your point, but "scheduled monument" is a noun phrase, and I needed a verb in the sentence, and "scheduled as a scheduled monument" is obviously less than ideal. Can you see a better way to put this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe "designated" is the verb Historic England uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe "designated" is the verb Historic England uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I take your point, but "scheduled monument" is a noun phrase, and I needed a verb in the sentence, and "scheduled as a scheduled monument" is obviously less than ideal. Can you see a better way to put this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there no viable targets for a see also section?
- There are other similar sites in Sussex, which are accessible via the category link at the bottom. I could add some of those, but that does seem to me like a category listing rather than a typical "See also". There's a link to causewayed enclosure in the article, and a link to Neolithic British Isles, which are the main two contextual articles. I'm open to suggestions for other links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there/could there be a list of these sites in England/Sussex? Of course, that's outwith the scope of this FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's this, in my user space, but I don't think it's ready for article space yet. It's too close to being a copy of the list in the back of one of the main references. I agree that it would be a good "See also" link when I have it ready to move to article space. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there/could there be a list of these sites in England/Sussex? Of course, that's outwith the scope of this FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are other similar sites in Sussex, which are accessible via the category link at the bottom. I could add some of those, but that does seem to me like a category listing rather than a typical "See also". There's a link to causewayed enclosure in the article, and a link to Neolithic British Isles, which are the main two contextual articles. I'm open to suggestions for other links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article is not tagged as part of any Wikiprojects.
- Tagged for Sussex and Archaeology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Peter Drewett is duplinked.
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Offham Hill was excavated in 1976 by Peter Drewett" by this time he has already been mentioned multiple time, so should not need his first name.
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- "near Lewes, East Sussex, England" Should start with a capital N, as in other infobox entries?
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Location of Offham Hill" Usually names are not bolded in captions?
- Left over from before I edited, I think. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- "about 1 ha" Convert, as you do in the infobox?
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "about 50 m south" Convert.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any photos of the area today?
- There are some visible here, but none specify that they're of the site, or show the quarry edge. I could use one of the general ones of the overall hill, but the article is really about the site, not the hill, so I am hesitant to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You introduce some persons by expertise, but not Peter Drewett.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- "10 cm of material, described by Drewett as "rubbly chalk", survived. The ditches were of varying depth; none were deeper than 80 cm" Convert measurements.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Worked flints and flakes and cores could be linked to Stone tool, Flake tool and Prepared-core technique. Flint axe and Scraper (archaeology) could also be linked where mentioned, as well as other relevant terms not familiar to layreaders.
- "to the Romano-British occupation" Link.
- Link Radiocarbon dates at first instead of second mention in the article body.
- All done; I linked to flake tool from the first mention of worked flakes, rather than the first mention of flakes, as those would have been mostly waste flakes. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support - looking nice to me. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1988–89 Gillingham F.C. season
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is my 15th nomination of an article on a season in the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This was a frankly awful and shambolic season as the club went on a two-month run of consecutive defeats, went through three managers (plus caretakers!), and ultimately slipped into the fourth tier of English football for the first time in 15 years. This is a vaguely topical nomination, as in a couple of weeks the club will be starting their first season in the fourth tier since 2013 after relegation at the end of last season (*sigh*). Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone fancy giving this one a review if they have some spare time over the weekend? @Amakuru:, @Edwininlondon:, @FrB.TG:, @Eem dik doun in toene:.....?
WBPX-TV
- Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
After a decade of planning, in January 1979, Boston gained another commercial television station. Conceived as a vehicle for scrambled over-the-air subscription broadcasting, WQTV provided such (and some commercial fare) for four years and was one of the first STV systems to fold completely in 1983. The station became a commercial independent but succumbed to very high programming costs at the end of 1985, being sold to The Christian Science Monitor. WQTV would be the springboard for the Monitor to make an expensive expansion into television that included a nightly national news program, a cable service, and programming seen as worthy but dull. It so strained the Church of Christ, Scientist, that its religious functions came under threat from TV losses. The church exited broadcasting at a steep loss in 1992 and 1993, selling the station to Boston University, which renamed it WABU-TV. It operated as an independent with some distinctive local programs and also professional sports coverage. BU sold it in 1999 to Paxson Communications Corporation, owner of the national Pax network (thus the current WBPX-TV call sign), and since then it has largely or entirely been a pass-through for programming from elsewhere. In each of its eras of history, channel 68 has reflected trends in television technology and economics.
This is my first FAC, though several more are conceivable given my inventory of existing and planned GAs. It is also the first FAC for an article on an individual television station; a radio station passed FAC eight years ago. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Image review
- Both images pass on licensing. The Boston image's caption is a little unclear to me; WQTV signed on from an antenna especially. I suggest rewording it. Both captions should have periods, as the second image has a full-sentence caption and Manual of Suffering demands consistency. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pass, good luck with the rest :). Sennecaster (Chat) 04:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Vami
Reserving a spot, as promised. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Federal Communications Commission [...] FCC
Can you add "(FCC)" after the first instance of "Federal Communications Commission" in the article prose?
- I normally do this now...but I guess I didn't here.
[...] which the [FCC] granted after hearing [...]
Should this be a hearing?
- Reworded
Even though a construction permit had been awarded in 1969, it would be nearly a decade before viewers saw channel 68 on their screens.
This could be written more clinically.
- Done
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories [...] B-T
Another acronym that needs introduction. Acronyms may not immediately jump out at and be understood by everyone, especially with several of them in play, and especially especially with all these radio names.
- Done
[...] Boston Celtics to subscribers in the 1981–82 season [...]
I got curious and, sure enough, when I checked I found 1981–82 Boston Celtics season.
- Is this an overlinking case?
[...] Star was the 8th-largest service [...] At the end of January, Star's [...] the end for Star [...] switch Star's subscribers [...]
Should be "STAR", no?Why use "Satellite Television & Associated Resources" after introducing the STAR acronym?
- Taking these together. The main reason is that we have two identically named subjects: the company STAR and the service Star. (In San Francisco, where they also operated, they called themselves Star TV, using mixed case, and they also did so less consistently in Boston.) The Boston Globe prints the latter as Star in mixed case. Then you get ads like this that mix "Star" and "STAR-TV" (with hyphen). So I have Star, STAR, STAR TV, and STAR-TV all used in their own advertising. If you think the service should also be labeled STAR all caps, I would not object. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
[...] but the station would attract a Boston institution with no television experience and big broadcasting dreams.
No citation? Good reason to cut this if yes.
- Done (I wanted some connective tissue for narrating originally)
The actual licensee, the Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, was formed because the newspaper employed only Christian Scientists, not possible for a broadcast station because of equal employment opportunity laws.
I feel the back-half of this could benefit from some rewording; something like "[...] only employed Christian Scientists, a practice disbarred for broadcast stations by equal employment opportunity laws."
- Done
[...] on WQTV by spring 1990 [...]
} Possibly misleading for readers in the Southern Hemisphere; MOS:SEASON.
- Done
[...] newsmagazine [...] newsgathering [...]
Are these typos?
- No, they are not
He was replaced by John Palmer [...]
Whomst
- Done
[...] which had finally ditched Monitor Channel fare and was airing syndicated shows instead.
This could be written more clinically.On displaying inflation for money sums, I have thus far seen it used once in the article, and with a titanic footnote for the figure and calculation. I would advise simply using Template:Inflation, and using often.
- Done. Please check my work — this is my first time using this template. @Vami IV: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Bridge cites three outside factors for having sealed the channel's fate [...]
This could be simplified; "cites three outside factors that sealed the channel's fate". I note here, with mention to the earlier use of "[the] eleventh hour", that your prose is rich with English idioms and phrases that might not be known or understood by readers for whom English is not a native language.[...] and the association of an "internal opposition" with the Boston Globe.
Should be "The Boston Globe" (or just "the Globe", as before) here, no?
- Yes, good catch.
[...] including a local personality who would move to WFXT: Butch Stearns.
Is this man relevant to the story of the station?
- A lot of local TV station articles for stations with news departments have lists of notable former employees. This one doesn't (since no news), but Stearns is high-profile enough to merit mention as having worked here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
In the FCC's incentive auction, WDPX-TV [...]
Whomst
- Done by adding a mention of the call sign change of WZBU
Rupert Downes
This article is about Rupert Downes, an Australian general of World War II. It was part of a series I wrote on senior Australian commanders in World War II. It was previously nominated back in 2011 and closed for lack of reviews. Maybeit can do better this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- File:Rupert_Downes.jpg: see WP:WATERMARK
- No idea what that is about. Uploaded a new version, from the same source, without watermark.
- File:Desert_Mounted_Corps_HQ_Staff.jpg: when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Zawed
- Lead: The structure of the 1st paragraph seems a little odd to me, with the second sentence out of place chronologically with what follows.
- Education and early life section: the title of Downes' thesis has Thymus capitalised but the remainder, apart from the first word, is lower case. Just want to check that is correct.
- First World War section: it feels like the 2nd para needs to start with a mention of the commencement of the Gallipoli campaign for a bit of context.
- Maybe place his substantive promotion to colonel later, for better flow of chronology. There is also repeated usage of 1916 when it is clear that the timeline hasn't moved into 1917.
- especially the DMS EEF: although it is pretty obvious what it is for, the abbreviation doesn't seem to have been introduced.
- Is there another source that could be used for the Sinai campaign to reduce the reliance on Downes' own work?
Hope the above helps with getting this to FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Harry
- was an Australian soldier, general, surgeon and historian in the first half of the 20th century seems a bit of a long intro. Can we not just say, for example, "was an Australian Army surgeon" for the first sentence and then expand upon it later?
- Should we italicise Australia in the War of 1939–1945? Its article does.
- Was he a particularly gifted musician?
- Soon after graduation, Downes enlisted in the Militia it says above he was a member of
- They had three children: do we need the names of non-notable offspring?
- Agree with Zawed that just a sentence or two of context on Gallipoli would be helfpul.
- In the Jordan valley in 1918, however, Downes was confronted with an epidemic not seeing the contradiction implied by the "however"
- Damascus contained over 3,000 sick and wounded Turkish soldiers How did he come to be responsible for the care of Turkish soldiers?
- Time soon vindicated his judgement in Wikipedia's voice, that's editorialising; if it's the opinion of a reliable source, it needs attribution
- Likewise remain his greatest legacy
- vindicated his judgement; and today the major military hospitals you don't need the semicolon and the "and"
- Downes held this post until 22 August 1944 new section so remind us which post
- Now nearly sixty, he then accepted an invitation to write he → Downes
Looks to be up to your usual standard; just a few quibbles! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article was created a long while ago, but I wanted to take it to Featured because I created it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ErnestKrause
Reflecting most of the positive comments made above, I'm wondering if there might be room for expanding the Legacy section with some added details here mostly reflecting what was included in the Wikipedia article for Australia in the War of 1939–1945. If this was to be his magnum opus, then maybe something like an adapted version of the passage from the main article might work as an adjusted CWW. Possibly mention the team of scholars who took over for him, how long it took them to write it, etc. It seems like his great unfinished project. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Oswald Boelcke
- Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about...the progenitor of fighter aviation tactics, Oswald Boelcke. As one of the world's first flying aces, he ran up a string of 40 victories to become the world's leading ace before dying in an accident. As leader of one of the world's original fighter squadrons, he mentored many other aces. He is also considered the father of the German Air Force, which honors his legacy. His manual of tactics is still taught in aviation training.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Avoid sandwiching text between images
- Moved Richthofen image left to eliminate sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this image suitable?
- Moved Richthofen image left to eliminate sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest adding alt text
- I lack the know-how, but I am educable.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wp:ALT has some more detail, but essentially what you would want to do is add
|alt=
with a description of what someone would be missing if they did not see the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wp:ALT has some more detail, but essentially what you would want to do is add
- I lack the know-how, but I am educable.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Hauptmann_Boelcke.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
- Published or registered by US Copyright Office prior to 1 January 1927.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the date and source country it would be unusual for this to be registered by the US Copyright Office at that time. Was this published in Germany? In what form? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- This was one of a series of propaganda postcards published by Sanke during the war and circulated by the German public.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this image suitable?
- This was one of a series of propaganda postcards published by Sanke during the war and circulated by the German public.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the date and source country it would be unusual for this to be registered by the US Copyright Office at that time. Was this published in Germany? In what form? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Published or registered by US Copyright Office prior to 1 January 1927.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:M_50_13_aviatik_BI_à_Rambervillers.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
- This is in the public domain in its country of origin, France. Can a photo be in public domain in one country, and copyrighted in another?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Without an author date of death we'd need another indication as to why it's PD in source country, but yes, it is possible for a work to be PD in one country and not another due to copyright treaties and legal differences. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_50_13_aviatik_BI_%C3%A0_Rambervillers.jpg: "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer."
- Is there some reason you do not read this easily available info instead of having me repeat it to you?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I read the easily available info, and repeating it is not helpful. What is missing is evidence supporting the claims made - unfortunately tagging is not always correct. For example, for this image the tag claims that the work is in the public domain because the author died at least 70 years ago, but the author is listed as unknown and the date of the work is such that the author could well have died more recently than 1953. So is there any evidence that the author did indeed die over 70 years ago? If no, is there evidence to support that the image is PD for another reason? Similarly for the other images, we need to be able to support that the licensing given is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I realize it is not helpful, but it is what we have from WikiCommons. Apparently, you doubt them. I lack the expertise to judge who is correct, you or them, and do not know know how to find additional copyright information.
- At this point, I must stand pat on my choice of graphics unless you have them eliminated from WikiMedia.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this image suitable?
- I read the easily available info, and repeating it is not helpful. What is missing is evidence supporting the claims made - unfortunately tagging is not always correct. For example, for this image the tag claims that the work is in the public domain because the author died at least 70 years ago, but the author is listed as unknown and the date of the work is such that the author could well have died more recently than 1953. So is there any evidence that the author did indeed die over 70 years ago? If no, is there evidence to support that the image is PD for another reason? Similarly for the other images, we need to be able to support that the licensing given is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Without an author date of death we'd need another indication as to why it's PD in source country, but yes, it is possible for a work to be PD in one country and not another due to copyright treaties and legal differences. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is in the public domain in its country of origin, France. Can a photo be in public domain in one country, and copyrighted in another?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Otto_Parschau's_A-16-15_Eindecker.jpg: what's the publication date of the source?
- June 1915 photo first published before 1923.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Info not supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this image suitable?
- Info not supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- June 1915 photo first published before 1923.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Kruis_van_de_Orde_Pour_le_Mérite_1914.gif: what's the copyright status of the medal?
- I was (and am) unaware that military medals can be copyrighted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly they can, if they meet the threshold of originality. US military medals will generally be PD because US federal government works are generally PD, but this one is not American. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, copyright status of the Pour le Merite is subject to the copyright laws of 1740.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this image suitable?
- In that case, copyright status of the Pour le Merite is subject to the copyright laws of 1740.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly they can, if they meet the threshold of originality. US military medals will generally be PD because US federal government works are generally PD, but this one is not American. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was (and am) unaware that military medals can be copyrighted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Erwin_Böhme.jpg: source links are dead, when and where was this first published?
- 1916 photo published prior to 1921.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oswald_Boelcke_(ca._1916).jpg: "The Wartenburg Trust asserts that all the images in their collection were published in Europe as postcards or prints prior to 1921."
- Is this image suitable?
- Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oswald_Boelcke_(ca._1916).jpg: "The Wartenburg Trust asserts that all the images in their collection were published in Europe as postcards or prints prior to 1921."
- 1916 photo published prior to 1921.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Manfred_von_Richthofen_(the_Red_Baron)_(12320674275).jpg: why does the uploader have the right to release this image under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted dour Richthofen photo. Subbed in more flattering one. New photo is in US public domain.
- Is this image suitable?
- Deleted dour Richthofen photo. Subbed in more flattering one. New photo is in US public domain.
Given the discussion above I will need to oppose on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- This opposition is unwarranted. NikkiMaria has issues with Wikimedia Commons, which is the source of the article's graphics. She hasn't given any suggestions or guidance for me to improve the situation. There cannot be a fair assessment if it is subject to unwritten rules by whim, but NikkiMaria's oppostion is based on such.
- How about another assessor stepping in to make an assessment based on actual criteria? I would love the chance to consider suggestions for improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant criterion is WP:WIAFA#3: Images must follow the image use policy, which specifies that you can prove images claimed to be PD are PD. As noted above, this would require evidence, eg. that an image tagged as life+70 was created by someone who died over 70 years ago. Pinging @WP:FAC coordinators: for input. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Nikkimaria is right. The image must be public domain or freely licensed by the copyright holder, AND the licensing must be correct and supported by appropriate evidence. It's not enough to hypothesize that someone probably died long enough ago to make it public domain. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of my being mystified by my fellow editors. Apparently, I cannot rely on using graphics from Commons for some inexplicable reason(s), but am required to have suitable illustrations. And no one is giving me so much as a hint of a solution.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Nikkimaria is right. The image must be public domain or freely licensed by the copyright holder, AND the licensing must be correct and supported by appropriate evidence. It's not enough to hypothesize that someone probably died long enough ago to make it public domain. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant criterion is WP:WIAFA#3: Images must follow the image use policy, which specifies that you can prove images claimed to be PD are PD. As noted above, this would require evidence, eg. that an image tagged as life+70 was created by someone who died over 70 years ago. Pinging @WP:FAC coordinators: for input. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator seems to be misunderstanding how the acceptability of an image at FAC, or even on Wikipedia, is decided. Nikkimaria isn't. The guidelines do not seem "mysterious" to me and Nikkimaria seem to have pointed out the most relevant ones and, on a skim, to have interpreted them correctly. Their last comment seems to summarise policy well. Buidhe is more experienced than me in this area and their comment above is a good succinct summary of the situation. Georgejdorner, with apologies for being blunt, you are wrong. Reread the policies and the FAC criteria and see if you can come up with ways of proving the acceptability of the images, or replacing them with acceptable ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Gog. The images need to be provably free to use, or to have good fair use rationales. There are many images on Commons that aren't useable in FAs. (I've actually just done a lot of work into a copyright investigation that has resulted in quite a few CSA navy files getting deleted off of Commons. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I assumed in good faith that all Commons images were usable. And, based on my many past assessments, I expected a fair opportunity from other editors to correct any shortcomings before a ruling was made. I even expected I might get a bit of help if needed. I did not expect instant rejection, hostility, and after the fact explanations.
- How about a ruling on which of the illustrations are acceptable? That way, I can remove unsuitable ones.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Margaret Abbott
- Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this for FAC because ... we need more woman in sports biographies to be featured, and I think this one meets the criteria.
Imaging winning gold in Olympics, but still no one knows about you. But this is an interesting case, even she didn't know that she won the Olympics! All constructive feedback is more than welcome. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Edwininlondon helped a lot by reviewing the article for GA. @Extraordinary Writ, The Rambling Man, and Gerda Arendt: were kind enough to review the article during the peer review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Wehwalt
Have you consulted biographies of her husband, who is a well-studied figure (I brought his best-known creation, Mr. Dooley to FA) to see if you can get further information about her? I see the Ellis biography of him on Internet Archive, and it seems to mention Abbott a few times.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I note you say The NY Times published a belated obituary. But they did publish an obituary at the time, here, though it was obviously inadequate as mostly discussing her husband and children.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Marriage was reported here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Wehwalt! Yes, I did look at various biographies of Mr. Dunne in search for more information about her, but found nothing more than trivial mentions about their marriage. And yes, the Ellis biography, which has some information is already used as a source; see this. I have looked through the internet archive, google books, JSTOR, Wikipedia library, Google scholar, Chicago Tribune at Newspaper.com, and other places but it appears that we don't know much about her. This is mostly because most people didn't knew about her until Paula Welch publisher her research [8] in 1982. As for the NYT archive newspapers, I can't access them. Mail me if you can, but I suspect that the obituary and the marriage report won't add anything substantial other than what we already know. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can access The New York Times (plus the Washington Post and lots of other papers) through ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library—for the two articles Wehwalt mentions, try this link and this link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did check out those links, but I think they don't have much to add in the article. Feel free to add more comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can access The New York Times (plus the Washington Post and lots of other papers) through ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library—for the two articles Wehwalt mentions, try this link and this link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Wehwalt! Yes, I did look at various biographies of Mr. Dunne in search for more information about her, but found nothing more than trivial mentions about their marriage. And yes, the Ellis biography, which has some information is already used as a source; see this. I have looked through the internet archive, google books, JSTOR, Wikipedia library, Google scholar, Chicago Tribune at Newspaper.com, and other places but it appears that we don't know much about her. This is mostly because most people didn't knew about her until Paula Welch publisher her research [8] in 1982. As for the NYT archive newspapers, I can't access them. Mail me if you can, but I suspect that the obituary and the marriage report won't add anything substantial other than what we already know. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Wehwalt, do you have any more comments. Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Therapyisgood
- Not a source review by any means but there is a mix of title and other casing in the "Online references" part of the page. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Therapyisgood, thanks for the comment. I have tried to fix the issue and it should be consistent now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Therapyisgood, do you have any more comments? Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Therapyisgood, thanks for the comment. I have tried to fix the issue and it should be consistent now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Margaret-abbott-gold-medal-1900-golf.jpg tag insufficient since source country and publication date unknown. I would imagine the source country is France and it could potentially be copyrighted there. (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I'm sorry but I am having a hard time understanding the issue. Per the copyright tag, "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1902." It is indeed created before 1902 (event took place in 1900), and an 'anonymous work' (we don't know the author). By that reasoning, it meets the criteria for being in the PD in US. Source country should be France (for creation of the work). I am unaware of French copyright laws, but Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France says: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, [the normal duration of copyright] is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation". I see no evidence whether it was published by 1972, so should be in the PD there as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that it wasn't published before 1972. We don't know when it was first published. Generally you need more than one source published long after the fact that does not provide author information in order to conclude the photographer is actually unknown. If it was published in France after 1927 and before 1972 it is still likely copyrighted in the US because of URAA and could still be copyrighted in France as well. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have now swapped it with another image. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that it wasn't published before 1972. We don't know when it was first published. Generally you need more than one source published long after the fact that does not provide author information in order to conclude the photographer is actually unknown. If it was published in France after 1927 and before 1972 it is still likely copyrighted in the US because of URAA and could still be copyrighted in France as well. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I'm sorry but I am having a hard time understanding the issue. Per the copyright tag, "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1902." It is indeed created before 1902 (event took place in 1900), and an 'anonymous work' (we don't know the author). By that reasoning, it meets the criteria for being in the PD in US. Source country should be France (for creation of the work). I am unaware of French copyright laws, but Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France says: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, [the normal duration of copyright] is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation". I see no evidence whether it was published by 1972, so should be in the PD there as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Dugan Murphy
I'll add some comments here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "a 1897" sounds to me like it should be "an 1897".
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "the Washington Park" – "the" doesn't seem necessary.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article says Abbott "had a two handicap". Is that how it is usually phrased in articles about golf? I would be tempted to write it as "a handicap of two", but I don't know much about golf.
- That is how it is usually written, see this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- What does "modern Olympics" mean?
- To differentiate it from Ancient Olympic Games, which took place as back as 776 BC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "9 holes" – per MOS:NUMERAL, it should be "nine holes".
- But per that same guideline, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Here, we have three numerical values in a sentence, and they need to be consistent whether spelled or in figures. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The phrase "in contrast" doesn't seem necessary to me.
- Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "in connection to the Paris Exhibition." the period should be outside the quotation unless the period is part of the quotation.
- Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "instead of as an Olympic event" doesn't make sense given the wording of the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to "instead of being referred to as an Olympic event".
- Fixed; much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Combining three different sources in citation 20 makes it unclear which of the three provided the quote in that sentence. Same with citation 29.
- Re Citation#20, all the three sources have that quotation! Same with Citation#29, both the sources have that quotation. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "in an attempt to gain information" doesn't seem like a necessary part of that sentence.
- Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "that we have today ... She came back." MOS:ELLIPSIS suggests that there should be a fourth period in that ellipsis, but doesn't seem to demand it. A fourth period seems necessary to me since "She" starts a new sentence.
- Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think "prize" is a better word than "reward" here.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire first paragraph of the body has only one citation, which combines 4 different sources. Can you be more specific in citing individual sentences in that paragraph? Same thing for the first 6 sentences of the body's second paragraph.
- Well, the minimum requirement for citations in FAC is 1 reference per paragraph. The reason I have merged these 4 references is because the information is really scattered among different sources, and providing separate inline citations would cause a repetition of various references, in my opinion, affecting the flow of readability. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Citation 4: Abbott 1900 is lacking a page number. Furthermore, this seems like a primary source to me. What does it say that the secondary sources don't say?
- Nothing more than the full title of the travel guide she wrote, that is why no page number. I think we are allowed to use primary sources for that purpose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a short article, but I'm willing to believe it is sufficiently comprehensive given how little scholarship there is on the topic and how limited Abbott's fame seems to be. Having said that, there seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection or sources in the works cited section. Thank you for working to improve the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Dugan! The comments were much helpful. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rad. I'm happy with the changes made and your responses to my comments. I support this nomination. If you have time to do some reading and commenting yourself, this FAC for an article I wrote is in dire need of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, will try to take a look! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rad. I'm happy with the changes made and your responses to my comments. I support this nomination. If you have time to do some reading and commenting yourself, this FAC for an article I wrote is in dire need of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from ErnestKrause
In acknowledgment of many of the positive statements above in this FAC, this is a short article about a significant accomplishment by a talented woman athlete. After a top to bottom read through, the article basically seems to cover the revived journalistic accounts of her win comprehensively, and this nomination should be supported. Optionally, I would add that it might be nice to elaborate further on the odd frame of mind that she did not realize that she had won at the Olympics even well after the event had been completed. That's optional however and the article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Dwaipayan
Short, sweet, easy-to-read, and very interesting. Meets FA criteria, in my opinion. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Edwininlondon
I reviewed this at GA. The prose looks even better now. The only little thing I could find was:
- Abbott never realized that she participated and became the first American woman to win an Olympic event. --> should there not be an "in" after participated? Or perhaps a little rephrasing.
Regardless, this meets the criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Made the sole change! Thanks for both your reviews! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- What makes Atlas Obscura a high-quality reliable source?
- It is an online American website described to be reliable in various other high quality reliable sources, including 'The New York Times'. Moreover, its use in this article is limited to non-controversial historical facts, and not any evaluative claims. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Lester source appears to be a republication - is it authorized?
- I'm not sure, but it is published on the site of Women Golfers' Museum. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay - is this likely to be a linkvio issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but it is published on the site of Women Golfers' Museum. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Taylor link is dead
- Added archived link. The author is Ph.D, so it should be fine to use. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Access dates aren't needed for GBooks links
- Fine, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Costa: these appear to be editors rather than authors
- Fine, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Britannica ref appears to be an online-only feature - why is it in the Print section?
- Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Golf Illustrated: is there a specific article being referenced? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Nikkimaria, for the review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine
After an unsuccessful (albeit low participation) first attempt back in 2018, I am nominating Monaco for FA status again. I have gone through it several times over the interim years to ensure that it meets the criteria. Everything is up to date with the announced sequel, and all the other sections have all the relevant information. I look forward to any suggestions you may have. Anarchyte (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the screenshot and providing a more descriptive caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Enlarged the screenshot to 360px and explained fog of war. Anarchyte (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but scaling should be done using
|upright=
rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but scaling should be done using
Aoba47
The storyline link in the lead seems unnecessary to me as it is a concept most readers will already know.Xbox 360 should be linked in the lead.I have a comment for this part, with critics complimenting its ability to feel harmonious with the gameplay. I would avoid the sentence construction (with X verb-ing). It is a note that I have received and I have seen often in the FAC space. I have been repeatedly told it is not appropriate for a FA writing so I would remove any instance of these in the article.- I've removed the one mentioned, but just to note, are you referring to all instances of "verb-ing" or just "with x verb-ing" (i.e., "saying", "stating", etc)? I will go through and reword some of the reception section "ing"s now regardless.
Is the part about the game being originally conceived as a "combination of The Sims, Diablo, and Hitman" notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? While it is interesting information, it seems more like a detail best left in the article. If anything, it may be more noteworthy to mention this was originally envisioned as a Xbox Live Indie Games.- Reworded that portion: After a hiatus, Schatz returned to the game and continued development, initially with the plan of releasing it as an Xbox Live Indie Game. Let me know what you think, and strike if you think this is suitable.
- I am not entirely convinced the quote box in the "Development and release" section is necessary, especially since there is already quite a bit in that section. It looks rather cluttered to me.
- I quite like quote boxes in development sections as they provide the reader with insight into why the game was developed, straight from the developers in a way that paraphrasing and encyclopedic writing can't. I do appreciate your opinion here though, so if others also think it's not necessary, I'll cut it. One way around the cluttered right side of the article could be to align the award image to the left, but I wanted to avoid any MOS:SANDWICH concerns.
The "they were crazy" quote does not seem particularly useful or informative to me.It is not necessary to have the citation after this part, a level designer and producer for Monaco, since the same citation is used at the end of the same sentence.I would include a link to the porting article for the first mention of "port" in the article.I'd avoid one-word quotes such as "bold", "wonderful", and "sloppy" as they are not particularly informative and take away from the other quotes in the article.This idea, Reviewers compared Monaco to other games and films, is mentioned in the lead and the article, but I only see a connection being made to Ocean's 11. What are the other connections being made?- The article had, until yesterday, a comparison with Metal Gear and Pac-Man, but it was sourced to Metro so I cut it. I've reintroduced similar comparisons using the Gamesradar review.
Why not put the information about the sales together? There is currently information on it in the first and last paragraphs of the "Reception" section, and I think it would be better to have it all together.I am not sure the awards should have their own sub-section. It looks choppy to have such a short sub-section and it may be best to integrate this information in the main "Reception" section.- How do you suggest it be arranged? Simply remove the section header and leave awards at the bottom? I could also see it being appended to the end of the opening paragraph of the section.
Why not just use Monaco II instead of Monaco 2 if that is the announced title?- The game is called Monaco 2, it just has "Monaco II" as the logo in the animated trailer.
I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments on the prose as I will leave the images and the sources to other reviewers. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Aoba47. I've replied above. I'll just note that in 2018, JimmyBlackwing conducted a review of the reliability of the sources and not much has changed since then (except for the removal of Metro and Softpedia). Assuming that is sufficient, the sources just need a spot-check review, which I'd been conducting myself while I rewrote portions. Anarchyte (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. I have left some responses to your responses. I think a separate source review has to be done for the FAC and I do not think it cares over from a peer review (although that is only my understanding). Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed the reception section to incorporate the awards, so I think that's everything. I've left aligned this image in #Development and release to try to reduce the amount of white space being {{clear right}}ed in #Sequel. I don't think MOS:SANDWICH will have any issue with this arrangement. Anarchyte (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. Unfortunately, the current image placement does cause MOS:SANDWICH issues in my view. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: I'm not sure, I had a look at some other FAs in various topics and it looks like as long as the images aren't large, this sort of placement is fine: 1, 2, 3, 4. I think MOS:SANDWICH is for when you place two wide images are directly beneath each other in the wikitext, making it impossible to unsandwich the text regardless of the screen width. If you zoom in on this article, the text gets unsandwiched (zooming in on MOS:SANDWICH results in one image directly following the other). @Gog the Mild: As a coordinator, perhaps you could shed some light onto how sandwiching is handled? Anarchyte (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are two clear cases of sandwiching in the article which need resolving. Or I would be happy to do it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thanks for clarifying. I assume they're the screenshot and award images? What I don't understand is how these are violations when the articles linked above passed without issue. I'm fine with relocating the award image, but left aligning screenshot images parallel with infoboxes is something present in pretty much every video game FA. I clicked on a few from WP:VG/FA and found these immediately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Anarchyte (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are two clear cases of sandwiching in the article which need resolving. Or I would be happy to do it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't know when sandwiching became part of the MoS; the FAC criteria have changed over time; not everything always gets picked up at FAC; images often get added or moved by drive by editors after promotion.
I see no sandwiching in numbers 3, 6 or 7; I would not personally have promoted any of the others. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting, is this not sandwiching: Imgur album? If not, is it because the images are smaller, and if so, what size do you or Nikkimaria suggest to avoid this issue? Upright 1.4 might work, or we could revert to the default and add a "(click to expand)" at the end of the caption. Otherwise, how do you suggest I rearrange the screenshot? I've collapsed part of the infobox to reduce the length of the right-hand side already. I've also played around with the concept of center aligning it and adding another screenshot using {{multiple images}} but that template forces px size. Anarchyte (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. My comments were primarily focused on the prose so I will leave images to whoever does the image review and to any other interested editors, and that does not prevent me from supporting the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
This article is about one of Pennsylvania's first American Civil War units which received notoriety for insisting upon its discharge before the First Battle of Bull Run. Although the unit was mocked in the press for this action, its troops went on to serve in many of the major battles of the war in the east. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the map
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:National_color_of_the_4th_Pennsylvania_Infantry_and_the_51st_Pennsylvania_Infantry.jpg: the source site indicates that all content is copyright protected and explicitly allows only fair use
- Corrected tag to PD US since the flag itself is public domain and the photograph falls under PD-art
- File:GenJFHartranft.jpg is tagged as lacking description and author, and needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added desc
Support from Gog the Mild
- Recusing to review,
- Strongly suggest dumping the one-sentence paragraph opening the lead. If you want two paragraphs there are better places to break.
- Done
- Any chance of working the date of Bull Run into the lead?
- Done
- "went on to serve in later Pennsylvania regiments during the war". What's a "later regiment"?
- Reworded
- "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to service in the army for three months after Confederate forces began the American Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter, a mass meeting was held at the Odd Fellows Hall in Norristown on 16 April, during which resolutions promising assistance to the families of men who volunteered were passed." A bit long. Optional: Split after "16 April".
- Split
- "The men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service". Every single one of them? If so, say so. (If not, say so.) Is it known, even approximately, how many men were in the militia regiment?
- Reworded. The militia regiment would have been much more understrength since relatively few men would have been willing to commit to military activities in peacetime.
- "volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day". Delete "on".
- Done
- "he men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day and were accepted" and "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment" seem to be in contradiction to me.
- Rephrased
- "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment." The militia regiment?
- Resolved
- "the regiment moved to Harrisburg". The only "regiment" mentioned so far is the militia, which I am guessing is not what you mean?
- Clarified
- ""On the next day, Patterson ordered". Delete "On".
- Done
- "to obtain a steamer to bring the regiment to Annapolis". Do you mean 'to take'?
- Rephrased
- "but the latter only allowed half of the regiment". "the latter" → 'he'.
- Done
- "The 4th Pennsylvania would not receive new uniforms from the state until June, after it arrived at the capital on 8 May". I don't think this works. Perhaps a new sentence after "June"?
- Done, details added.
- "three pickets of the regiment". A "picket" can be either an individual or group. Is it known if this was one group of three soldiers, three separate individuals, or three separate groups? Similarly in the next sentence.
- Bates suggests that the pickets were stationed together or in close proximity with the statement that: On Sunday, June 30th, at two o'clock in the morning, the pickets of the reginent, stationed-on the old Fairfax road, under command of Lieutenant M. R. M'Clennan, were attacked by about thirty of the enemy. They were repulsed by our pickets, only three in number, who killed Sergeant Haines, previously a clerk in the Treasury Department, at Washington. Three other of our pickets on the outer post, intending to go to the rescue of their comrades, came in contact with the enemy's force, in which Thomas Murray was killed, and Llewelyn Rhumer was severely wounded. The third, dropping upon the ground, escaped without injury, the enemy, in the excitement and darkness, passing over him.
- There is a lot of "on the next day" usage. Is "on" a USvar thing?
- No, it's just how I instinctively write since I tend to be more wordy than necessary.
- "The appeals of McDowell and Hartranft to patriotic duty fell on deaf ears: many in the regiment were willing to stay". Does the second clause here not contradict the second?
- Reworded. This shifts the emphasis but demonstrates that there was split opinion.
- "and others felt similarly." Is this on the testimony of Corporal Corson? If so → 'and that others felt similarly.'
- Done
- "after the end of the war". Optional: → 'after the war'.
- Done
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just checking that day-month format is acceptable in an article on a US topic. But no need for that query to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because there are sources that use military date format. However, this is also because I instinctively type in day-month format. If there is a date conversion bot the dates should probably be switched.
- A picky point I have just noticed: The lead says it is an infantry regiment, the article doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done
Comments by PM
Interesting unit. Will be back to take closer look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Donkey Kong Country
Donkey Kong Country is one of those rare (ba-dum-chiss) video games where it's impossible to overstate its influence. It transformed Donkey Kong from a dusty, archaic product of the olden days into a multimillion-dollar franchising juggernaut, turned the tide of the 16-bit console wars by giving players a taste of 3D graphics well before they could actually play next-generation hardware, and elevated Rare from a tiny, unknown studio into one of the video game industry's premier developers. Its reputation has floundered a bit over the years (thanks in part to a seemingly baseless claim that Donkey Kong's legendary creator, Shigeru Miyamoto, despised it) but it remains an important game that defined every subsequent Donkey Kong game and set a new standard for how video game graphics would be judged.
Jaguar and I initiated plans to revitalize and expand this article after it badly deteriorated in the years following its initial GA promotion, and lo and behold, here is the finished result (with some very helpful copyediting by Popcornfud). I believe it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the internet, documenting a copious number of interviews, sales reports, contemporary reviews, and whatnot. Now, let's get into some monkey business. JOEBRO64 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from SatDis
Apologies that I do not have a lot of time for comments, but I have left some notes below:
- The lead reads excellently.
- "Level tropes" - can "tropes" be described in more detail, like "location", "design theme"?
- Can you clarify why "Contest game mode" and "Team game mode" have capital letters?
- "Rare assembled a team of 12, and production started around August 1993. The first demo was playable by November 1993." - these feel like three short sentences when read together. Can any clauses be combined or elaborated?
- "change his composition methods based on it, which played on a role on Donkey Kong Country" - I'm not sure if this sentence is maybe too long, but the final part has confused me. What exactly played a role?
- "which lasted from 23 to 25 June 1994." - maybe "took place" or "occurred" instead of "lasted"?
- In reception, [79][85][86][74], just reorder.
- "as well as Game Boy Printer support.[104][103]" same here.
- "with Entertainment Weekly writing" - I've been told not to include verbs with -ing like this, but not sure here.
Just a few notes, hopefully some help. SatDis (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments - should get to them later today. I'll try to review Wizards of Waverly Place by tomorrow JOEBRO64 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SatDis: all done JOEBRO64 12:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @TheJoebro64: your responses to the comments above have been approached diligent. Some of those confusing sentences are now much clearer. I am now happy to support this article on its prose and formatting. Well done and thanks for the interesting read on Donkey Kong! SatDis (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Media review from SNUGGUMS
- File:Donkey Kong Country SNES cover.png, File:Donkey Kong Country Shot 2.png, and File:DKCRereleaseComparison.png each have appropriate FURs
- Is File:Tim and Chris Stamper outside the FortuneFish offices.jpg supposed to be the uploader's own work?
- Appears so. It was nominated for deletion in 2018 but the closing admin determined that it was likely the uploader's work. JOEBRO64 12:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- No copyright concerns with File:SGI Power Challenge 10000 L (1).jpg or File:Shigeru Miyamoto GDC 2007.jpg
- What benefit does File:DKC Aquatic Ambience Sample.ogg besides serve as an ear treat for fans? Also, when I don't know how long the track is, I can't say whether it meets the length limits of WP:SAMPLE.
- It's 30 seconds, within the limits of WP:SAMPLE. I think it's useful—Donkey Kong Country is famous for its soundtrack, and the amount of discussion the article dedicates to it justifies a sample in my opinion. Aquatic Ambience specifically is brought up multiple times, including in the Music subsection of Development and in the Influence subsection of Legacy, where The A.V. Club is quoted as saying "[the track] alone spawned a 'minor cult'" and Donald Glover is noted to have sampled it in his music. JOEBRO64 12:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the file source for File:Josh Wolf 2016.png is dead, making it hard to verify this was properly licensed
- Not sure File:SNES-Mod1-Console-Set.jpg can be claimed as own work
- The photo was taken by the uploader himself, and many of Evan-Amos' video game console images are featured pictures. JOEBRO64 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I might review other aspects later, but here's something to start with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: thank you for the review! I've responded above JOEBRO64 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- My pleasure, and to elaborate on the audio sample used, 30 seconds is the longest possibly allowed for tracks 5 minutes or longer. For any song shorter than that, you can only use a portion that's 10% or less of its total duration. This is why I didn't know for sure whether the half-minute piece here was within limits. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- Probably my favourite video game of all time, marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[9]
- Level is linked at second instead of first mention.
- "The player attempts to complete each level while jumping between platforms" This makes it seem like you constantly have to jump between platforms, when long stretches you can just walk? Since some levels you swim and drive, may be better to say something more general than "jump".
- You could mention that the player can swap between the two characters at will.
- Perhaps not a big deal, but maybe link the different kinds of animals mentioned in the article?
- I'd argue that'd fall under WP:OVERLINK; in my view, words like "gorilla", "ostrich", etc. are common enough that they don't need to be linked JOEBRO64 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there no Brute Force article to link?
- Yeah, there isn't one because Brute Force was never released and not much is known about it. If I'm not mistaken, it ended up morphing into Killer Instinct JOEBRO64 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link Game Boy at first mention.
- "are made Donkey Kong Country a side-scrolling platformer because the staff had grown up playing Nintendo's Super Mario games" Must have been extremely young staff if they "grew up" playing games released just a few years before?
- Yeah, Gregg Mayles mentions several times in his interviews that the Rare staff was pretty young (including that he was only 22, so he would've been a teenager when Super Mario Bros. came out). The bit in particular comes his quote that "We wanted it to be a side-scroller because we'd all grown up playing Mario games and just wanted to make one of our own. So, kind of putting Donkey Kong in that style of game and trying to bring it up to date... we wanted it to be like a very modern feeling" around the 10:20 mark in the cited video. JOEBRO64 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Mayles said "we thought a second character could perform this function, look visually impressive, and give the player a feeling that they were not alone"" It seems you don't explain explicitly anywhere that the two characters are visible on the screen at the same time.
- "Rambi the Rhino" and "Squawks the Parrot", should the animal type really be capitalised?
- "To develop Donkey Kong's movements, Rare staff spent hours at the nearby Twycross Zoo watching and videotaping gorillas,[28] but found their movements were unsuitable for a fast game, and instead based the animations loosely on a horse's gallop.[33]" This seems to be especially about his runcycle? Not much horse-like about his other movements...
- Mark Betteridge just links to Rare. You could present his occupation too, as you do with other people mentioned.
- "Rare avoided mentioning that Cranky was the original Donkey Kong in the game and marketing materials, fearing that Nintendo would disapprove of the idea." I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in the manual, though?
- Is it worth mentioning under legacy or something that DK's redesigned appearance was used in Donkey Kong (1994 video game) before the Rare game was released?
- Donkey Kong '94 actually uses his original design, the only difference being that he sports the tie (which, of course, Donkey Kong Country would popularize), but from the sound of it, Miyamoto suggested the tie specifically for Donkey Kong Country. I can't think of a way to mention it without taking away focus from Donkey Kong Country and I feel like it's minor enough that it could be classified as mere trivia in regards to Country. JOEBRO64 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The artists began by rendering the characters in NURBS using PowerAnimator" Modelling might be a better term, since you later use rendering for another process.
- Done. ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps link spritesheet somewhere, maybe by " nimation for each sprite".
- Linked (hopefully in the right place). ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- How many artists were there?
- It depends how 'artists' is defined. The game's credits list six different staff members who worked on objects, background design, and graphics manipulation. This article's infobox, which I think is more accurate, lists a firm four. I can't find anything definite in the sources. I'm not sure I can confidently insert a figure into the article's prose (if that's what you were suggesting). Perhaps Joe knows for sure? ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "used the machines using" Any way to vary instead of double "use"?
- Replaced first instance with 'operated'. ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Rare attempted to keep the look of the levels consistent so different landscapes would not be right next to each other." What is meant by this, so tha progress would make sense from level to level in the overworld, or within levels?
- Yes, my understanding was that it gave players a sense of orientation. Clarified in the prose. ♦ jaguar 17:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- it appears you went with UK English, but there are inconsistencies, such as "favorite" instead of "favourite", and you mix "ise" and "ize" endings, this should be checked throughout.
- Fixed all inconsistencies. ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have a music section, but little to nothing about sound effects?
- I'll see what I can do. ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The most I remember finding about the sound effects was who provided the Kongs'/Kremings' voice clips, that Tim Stamper had Wise include environmental sounds in the music since they couldn't be played directly in the game, and that Rare wanted real animal noises but had to settle for Betteridge's monkey clips because Rare couldn't capture them with their microphone at the zoo, all of which is discussed in the article. Video game sound design in general isn't something that is really discussed that much, unfortunately - but I'll wait to see what Jag can pull up. JOEBRO64 17:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it can't be found, that's of course just how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, I hate to disappoint but I couldn't find anything worthwhile to compliment what already has been mentioned throughout the article. I've added a visit to Twycross Zoo right at the bottom of my bucket list, though. ♦ jaguar 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it can't be found, that's of course just how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "A Game Boy port was planned but retooled into a separate game, Donkey Kong Land (1995), after the programmer Paul Machacek convinced Rare that it would be a better use of resources and expand the potential audience.[63]" Seems tacked on in the context section, doesn't it make more sense under aftermath or something like that?
- Yeah you're right. I've moved it to the second paragraph in the aftermath section, where the sequels lie. ♦ jaguar 20:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The footnotes should have citations too.
- Added citations to all except the first one, I can't find Fischer's credit... ♦ jaguar 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is generally advised that pictured individuals face towards the text, rather than away from it, as is the case with Shigeru Miyamoto here.
- I've never heard of that? I tried moving it to the left but it squashed the next subsection, and some people frown on doing that. I've replaced it with another image of the handsome Japanese man. ♦ jaguar 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Kotaku said Donkey Kong Country was an event could not be replicated in modern" Missing "that could"?
- Added. ♦ jaguar 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "convert 3D models into SNES sprites without losing detail" Seems a bit of a stretch, perhaps with little loss of detail or similar?
- Yes, 'little loss' is more accurate. Clarified. ♦ jaguar 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Rare developed two sequels for the SNES, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (1995) and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! (1996). After a hiatus, during which Rare was acquired by Nintendo competitor Microsoft, Retro Studios revived the series with Donkey Kong Country Returns (2010) for the Wii and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (2014) for the Wii U." I would expect to see the N64 game listed here, before the hiatus?
- Yes, added DK64. ♦ jaguar 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, FunkMonk. All have been addressed so far. ♦ jaguar 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Other comments from SNUGGUMS
- All GameBoy release dates (both Color and Advance) need to be cited somewhere, preferably within article body, but even within the infobox is better than not having any refs for them at all
- "18 months" from "work on Donkey Kong Country over 18 months" doesn't sound like accurate math when work is said to have begun around August 1993 before a November 1994 release. Those timeframes are actually 15 months apart. Can you pinpoint a day or even month when production finished? That would help narrow down a more likely start time.
- So this is a little confusing and I can see why it needs to be clarified: the 18 month figure is the total amount of time it took for the game to evolve from concepts into the final product, while the August 1993 date is when work on the game itself actually started. I've clarified this in prose. JOEBRO64 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The use of "cited" from "frequently cited as one of the greatest video games" (both from lead and "Retrospective assessments") reads awkwardly. You'd be better off with something like "considered", "deemed", "perceived", or "ranked".
- I'm a bit surprised the list of subsequent DK games in the lead doesn't include Donkey Kong 64 considering how that also became quite popular
- Within the first paragraph of "Gameplay", it feels repetitive to start three consecutive sentences with "the"
- Remove the colon from "Buddies include: Rambi"
- You're using semi-colons excessively, and the second sentence from the last paragraph of "Gameplay" is quite a mouthful! You can split that apart by changing the semi-colons into periods.
- Try to change things up for the second paragraph of "Design" per my above comments on "Gameplay"
- "too great a departure"..... I assume you mean "too much" or "too big" here for Diddy Kong's design, and either of those would work better than "great"
- "It cost an estimated US$1 million to produce and, at the time, had the most man hours ever invested in a video game, 22 years; in 2019, Gregg Mayles said this number would be impossible in the modern game industry." is another overly long sentence. See my above recommendation on how splitting can fix it.
- "GamePro said it would be extraordinarily popular during the 1994 holiday shopping season." from "Reception" doesn't really tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked this game, and same goes for GameFan predicting influence
- You can probably guess what's wrong with "Consumers were unfamiliar with 3D graphics at the time; according to Official Nintendo Magazine, by bringing next-generation graphics to the SNES just 12 days before the PlayStation's Japanese launch, Donkey Kong Country persuaded consumers that an immediate upgrade was unnecessary." from "Legacy"
- Unless Mekazoo, Kaze and the Wild Masks, and Kroko Bongo: Tap to the Beat! are likely to warrant articles in the near future, I'd unlink these
- Don't italicize Digital Spy, "Square Enix Music Online", Fanbyte, Iwata Asks, AllGame, "All Things Andy Gavin", or "Original Sound Version"
- In contrast, add italics for Game Informer and Advertising Age (which should read as Ad Age)
- Citation#100 ("New screens honor the legacy of Donkey Kong Country - but WHY?") is missing a "+" for its GamesRadar+ bit
- There's a HarvRef error for citation#119 ("Turner, Williams & Nutt 2003") when not connected to any used sources
Overall, this isn't too far off from being FA-level. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to all points above JOEBRO64 20:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome, and just to be clear: is it known when work finished for the game? When the 18 month bit appears to have started before the August 1993 full-scale production began, that suggests conceptual work started May 1993 or earlier. Giving a timeframe for this could help narrow it down. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- SNUGGUMS, it doesn't appear anywhere in reliable sources, unfortunately. From my research, total development lasting 18 months and actual production beginning in August '93 is the most we know. I did some additional looking today (including in old Nintendo Power issues and documents Mayles has posted on his Twitter) and came up dry. If it appears in a reliable source eventually, I'll 100% add it in ASAP. JOEBRO64 07:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome, and just to be clear: is it known when work finished for the game? When the 18 month bit appears to have started before the August 1993 full-scale production began, that suggests conceptual work started May 1993 or earlier. Giving a timeframe for this could help narrow it down. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Shooterwalker
I gave this one a read. I could nitpick, but I think the prose is solid. Excellent job on the influence section, to show the impact of this game and why it is so celebrated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Homo antecessor
- Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. This is the article's 2nd time here because I was forced to go inactive all the way back in January, and the nomination of course had to be archived. Now that I (finally) have the time, I have re-nominated the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I supported last time around after a detailed review, so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging everyone else involved in the previous review, @Dudley Miles and Jens Lallensack: any further comments? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Betsy Bakker-Nort
- Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the successful nomination of post-war Dutch parliamentarian Corry Tendeloo a few months ago, I started the article about her pre-war predecessor, another women's rights fighter largely forgotten these days. Thanks to the thorough reviews of Johannes Schade at GA and SusunW at PR the article is in much better shape than I could manage. Yet no doubt more improvements are needed, which I look forward to hear about. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Betsy-Bakker-Nort-1922-by-AS-Weinberg.jpg does not appear to be PD-US, unless there is a known publication before 1927
- I did a bit of research. Photo taken in 1922 by portrait photographer A.S. Weinberg according to [12]. I can't find anything about it being published anywhere. The site hosting it says it is in the public domain. The site's owner, Atria, is an institute that is a descendant of the International Archives for the Women's Movement. Since starting in 1935, they received many personal archives including Betsy Bakker Nort's, according to [13]. It is likely that this photo was never published until Atria did so on their website. The site hosts other Bakker-Nort images, and lists some of those as in Copyright, see for example [14]. So they seem to follow the rules. None of the digitized 1920s, 1930s, 1940s newspaper articles on delpher.nl that mention Bakker-Nort feature this photo. So I made the change and tagged it PD-US-unpublished, is that correct? I also added the info I gathered to the file on Commons.
- That seems reasonable Buidhe public (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Group photo International Woman Suffrage Alliance June 1908 in Amsterdam.jpg A publication before 1927 is probably needed to make it PD-US, unless it was out of copyright in NL on 1 January 1996
- Given that it was an event in 1908, it very likely was published somewhere soon after that event, although I have not found a specific publication.
- Its usually not sfficient to rely on speculation that it was published at a specific time Buidhe public (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have checked the newspaper archives for the June 1908 event [15], as well as the monthly magazines for the relevant topic in that year (see [16]). I could not find this photo published. According to this researcher here [17], the photographer was hired by the organisation to document the event. I expected to find the photo in the report of the event, which according to this newspaper report [18] came in July 1908. Google Books does not allow a preview, but it does allow a search inside the report, [19]. None of the relevant keywords produce a result that suggests this photo is in this report. The photographer died in 1947 according to [20]. Like the lead photo Betsy-Bakker-Nort-1922-by-AS-Weinberg.jpg, this photo comes from the Atria institute, probably donated by one of the event organisers to the International Archives for the Women's Movement in the 1930s; Atria have shared it with the EU run Europeana.eu; both list this photo as in the Public Domain. It is likely this photo was never published. Shall I change its license to PD-US-unpublished?
- File:Peace Palace in the Hague in 1922.jpg Need to know publication date and/or author's death date to determine copyright status
- It doesn't mention a name, just Agence Rol. Agence photographique. The site, run by the European Union, lists this item as No Copyright, with a link to [21]. My best guess, given that it is made by a press agency and the file has 1922 in its name, is that it was published in 1922 in France. Can we keep it?
(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review this. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to reserve a spot. Poke me if it slips my mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The image for the Reichstag fire seems disproportionately large.
- I have cropped it a bit
- The image is still the same size.
- I cropped it even further, made it the current version, but I too do not see the new version appear on the page yet. Perhaps the image is cached somewhere for some time. I'll check again in the morning.
- The image is still the same size.
- Cite 75 has a p/pp error.
- "she received enough votes to be elected". I suspect readers will understand how elections work; perhaps 'she was elected'?
- "After the German invasion in May 1940". Could you specify which one, and the link is Easter eggy.
- "Bakker-Nort did not return to the House." What and/or where is "the House"?
- Why "concentration camp Theresienstadt" rather than 'Theresienstadt concentration camp'? Also in the article.
- "Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task of leading the women's movement Jacobs had given her." Suggest → 'Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task Jacobs had given her: of leading the women's movement.'
- "Historian Marianne Braun" to 'The historian Marianne Braun' to avoid false title.
- "when a corresponding law". What is a "corresponding law"? And/or, what does it correspond to?
- "legally incapacitated and denied them any say over their own children and property needed to be reformed." → 'legally incapacitated, denied them any say over their own children and property needed to be reformed.'
- "a more conservative group". "more conservative" that what/who?
- "two female board members on the board of the VDB". Can "board" twice in five words be avoided?
- "The VDB retained its five seats". It would be helpful if at some point a reader could be told the total number of seats.
- "slowly taking up more feminist's viewpoints". Why the 's?
- "which since the 1929 election had two female members of parliament, with van Itallie-Van Embden joining Bakker-Nort". This fits clumsily inside a sentence on a different topic. Could it be given a sentence of its own?
- "wearing their national flags". How does one wear a flag?
- "The Hague Convention resulted in little progress". On anything? Or just on women's rights? If the latter, say so.
- On anything. No agreements were reached on the other topics (territorial waters nor foreign property).
- "Bakker-Nort continued to fight for the right of a married woman to choose to keep her own nationality, but during her whole time in parliament she was a lone voice." Could you confirm that VDB policy was opposed to this position?
- I can not. The source says she was the only one raising the issue. I imagine the others thought the same but let her do the talking. Is "lone voice" not a good description of this? Is it better to just remove it?
- I can just about live with it, but if it were me I would remove it. If you can think of a more nuanced way of putting it that would be good.
- I removed it
- I can just about live with it, but if it were me I would remove it. If you can think of a more nuanced way of putting it that would be good.
- "to remove any restrictions for women to be appointed notary". This seems a little convoluted. Perhaps 'to remove any restrictions on women being appointed notaries' or similar?
- "had most recently tried in 1927". Tried what? To argue for? If you mean tried to introduce a bill, say so. If you mean succeeded in introducing a bill but it had failed to become law, say so.
- removed altogether to simplify
- "and had most recently tried in 1927, but was voted down again" Voted down again in 1927, 1927, or both?
- removed altogether to simplify
- "the Nazis were the instigators of the fire." Can one instigate a fire? "to incite; to bring about by urging or encouraging".
- "She urged people to value the freedom and justice that democracy provided and to fight all who aimed to curtail them/" I assume this was directed at the German government. If so, could this be made clear?
- Possibly but that would be speculation. The source only says she spoke at a meeting in Amsterdam. Perhaps "She urged the Dutch people to .."?
- That would be fine.
- "She had tried to at least put a time limit of five years on the law". I don't understand. Five years before it came into effect? Five years before currently employed women were fired? Something else?
- Time limit as in how long the law would apply for. I rephrased it to make clear her amendment was about making it temporary
- "which banned Aryans from marrying Jews". I think Aryans needs explaining in line per MOS:LINK "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
- I did but please check
- Excellent.
- "They were spurred on by the activities of for instance the VVGS". Suggest either deleting "for instance" or specifying the wider group which the VVGS is exemplifying.
- "The late 1930s saw a rise in antisemitism in the Netherlands, once many Jews fled Germany." This seems to say that antisemitism increased in the Netherlands because Jews were leaving Germany. Does the source support that? (I fail to see the connection.)
- Yes, 30,000 Jewish refugees came across the border, which was a relatively big group compared to size of Dutch Jews population. However, rather than trying to explain all this, I have dropped the second part.
- Ah. (You could have added "to the Netherlands" to the end of the sentence.
- "it condoning the Nazis' actions." What actions?
- elaborated a bit more, linking to Kristallnacht
- "the next election, leaving it to the next generation." "... next ... next ..."
- "the bill for punishment on treason and espionage." Should "on" → 'of'?
- "The next day the Nazis invaded the Netherlands." 1. "the Nazis" → 'Germany'. 2. Could we have a link to German invasion of the Netherlands in there.
- "the occupiers dissolved parliament". Could it be stated that the Netherlands was defeated and occupied. Perhaps giving the date of the end of the fighting and/or the start of the occupation.
- Lead: "during her time in the chamber mainly argued the case for more women's rights with respect to marriage law and labour law"; article: "Bakker-Nort had spent 18 years in the House, addressing parliament mainly on the issues of justice, education and labour". The lead should be a summary of the article, but they don't seem to match.
- Not literally indeed, but in the lead we have the specific topics that come up time and again in the body of the article. This sentence here in the body is wider in scope, but I suspect it is more useful for the reader if the specific topics are in the lead. Happy to change if you disagree.
- Ho hum. I see your case, so your choice. Leave as is if you wish.
- "As the Nazi occupiers". "Nazi" → 'German'. Check other uses of Nazi as well please.
- Is there a reason why Nazi should not be used? It seems to me it is quite common to use Nazis and Germany interchangably.
- And a thoroughly bad habit it is too. (IMO. (In an encyclopedia article.)) One would not write "The demorats liberated Paris" or "The communists were victorious at Stalingrad". The ideology of a nation's government should not be used as a shorthand for the name of the country. (IMO. In an encyclopedia article.)
- I see your point. I have replaced Nazis with Germans in quite a few places, particularly where it involves them invading or occupying or anthing international. However, there are a few cases with the Reichstagbrand and internal aggression towards German jews where I feel Nazis is more appropriate.
- Yep. That's fine.
- I see your point. I have replaced Nazis with Germans in quite a few places, particularly where it involves them invading or occupying or anthing international. However, there are a few cases with the Reichstagbrand and internal aggression towards German jews where I feel Nazis is more appropriate.
- And a thoroughly bad habit it is too. (IMO. (In an encyclopedia article.)) One would not write "The demorats liberated Paris" or "The communists were victorious at Stalingrad". The ideology of a nation's government should not be used as a shorthand for the name of the country. (IMO. In an encyclopedia article.)
- "She never had belonged" → 'She had never belonged'.
- "She was single since 1939 when her husband had died." → 'She had been single since 1939 when her husband died.' And why is this mentioned out of chronological order?
- I tried to find a good place for it in chronological order but it kind of breaks the flow of the 1937–1940 section. So I removed it altogether.
- I think it too important to remove. I have reinserted it, but feel free to move or rephrase. (Obviously!) Or to come back for any further discussion.
- "accepted an offer to resign taking their pension." → 'accepted an offer to resign and take their pension.'
- "Bakker-Nort was found alive at the camp in June 1945". Is it known by who, or in what circumstances or why this was a month after the end of the war?
- I added a litle bit of what is known but nothing known about the circumstances.
- "of which Bakker-Nort was one of the most prominent." "which" → 'whom'.
- "The newly acquired right to study quickly became normal". I assume you mean at university'?
- "At some point in the 1930s, she had donated her documents to the International Archives for the Women's Movement in Amsterdam, which also housed personal documents of, among others, Jacobs and Rosa Manus, as well as documents of women's organizations and journal issues." A long sentence. Suggest breaking at "Amsterdam, which".
- "In 1992, the feminists' materials were identified in the Russian Military State Archives and recorded on microfilm, and 10 years later returned to the International Archives of the Women's Movement." Did this have any effect on academic interest in Bakker-Nort or on the publication of works about her?
- Not as far as I can see. There is no extensive biography. Yet.
- Hmm. If access to this mass of material 20 years ago has really led to no academic follow up, perhaps that could be noted? Possibly adding that women's stories have been generally lost because they weren't a focus of academia and that lack of archival records and digitization has contributed to this? I am pinging SusunW in as they covered similar issues in the last section of their FA Inter-Allied Women's Conference. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree that lack of academic focus and records upon which they could have relied (but chose not to) had a huge effect on women's stories being lost. Perhaps This source will help. Look specifically at pp 496 re Rosemary Foot's observation and 497 the impact of a lack of women's archives. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed review. I believe I have addressed all your points. There are a number of cases where I have explained something or asked you a question, see above. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Thank you. A handful of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think I have them addressed but do check. If the image problem persists I'd love some guidance. Thx, Edwininlondon (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am still twitchy about the academic interest issue, which I have recently expanded on, and which Susun has chipped in on, but I think that FAC is met as it is so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments and suggestions, and your support. I agree it would be good to say something about the archives and scholarly research, but I struggle to find something that pertains to Bakker-Nort. While insightful, SusunW's references are quite remote from the IAV archives and Bakker-Nort. Ideally I find a source that says "while some scholars have used the recovered archives to write about Aletta Jacobs and Rosa Manus, none have published (yet) about Bakker-Nort". But there is no such thing I can find. I have found evidence of the archives being used to write about Jacobs (see [22]) and Rosa Manus (see [23]). Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source shows that lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. While not directly about Bakker-Nort, it in general applies to every historic woman. IMO there is no possible way that the stolen archives could not have impacted her story being told. Had there been access during the push to create women's studies courses (1970-1990), there is no doubt in my mind that she would already have a full blown biography because she ties into too many other critical Dutch feminists. But, it happened like it happened. I do see your point Edwininlondon, but as long as you aren't drawing a conclusion, I think you have enough. You can make the general statement "A lack of archives or access to them..." and follow it with "For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus". But, its your call. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm happy to add this: "A lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus." But I'm not finding the exact source for this first sentence. Nothing on pages 496, 497 or even further on in Glenda Sluga's article quite cover it I think. Is there something else? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sluga discusses the paucity of women's presence in national archives (but wealth in feminist records) and lack of scholarship on women 500-501, but in this case, perhaps this is helpful, which specifically talks about the IAV. 27 talks about how lack of materials make it difficult to include women in the historic records, 29 talks about how the records were used to counter government assertions about women, 39 talks about importance of archives in generating scholarship, and 41 talks about how the lack of records leads to invisibility. Hope that helps. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Splendid, thank you. I've added the 2 lines and sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sluga discusses the paucity of women's presence in national archives (but wealth in feminist records) and lack of scholarship on women 500-501, but in this case, perhaps this is helpful, which specifically talks about the IAV. 27 talks about how lack of materials make it difficult to include women in the historic records, 29 talks about how the records were used to counter government assertions about women, 39 talks about importance of archives in generating scholarship, and 41 talks about how the lack of records leads to invisibility. Hope that helps. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm happy to add this: "A lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus." But I'm not finding the exact source for this first sentence. Nothing on pages 496, 497 or even further on in Glenda Sluga's article quite cover it I think. Is there something else? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The source shows that lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. While not directly about Bakker-Nort, it in general applies to every historic woman. IMO there is no possible way that the stolen archives could not have impacted her story being told. Had there been access during the push to create women's studies courses (1970-1990), there is no doubt in my mind that she would already have a full blown biography because she ties into too many other critical Dutch feminists. But, it happened like it happened. I do see your point Edwininlondon, but as long as you aren't drawing a conclusion, I think you have enough. You can make the general statement "A lack of archives or access to them..." and follow it with "For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus". But, its your call. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments and suggestions, and your support. I agree it would be good to say something about the archives and scholarly research, but I struggle to find something that pertains to Bakker-Nort. While insightful, SusunW's references are quite remote from the IAV archives and Bakker-Nort. Ideally I find a source that says "while some scholars have used the recovered archives to write about Aletta Jacobs and Rosa Manus, none have published (yet) about Bakker-Nort". But there is no such thing I can find. I have found evidence of the archives being used to write about Jacobs (see [22]) and Rosa Manus (see [23]). Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am still twitchy about the academic interest issue, which I have recently expanded on, and which Susun has chipped in on, but I think that FAC is met as it is so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think I have them addressed but do check. If the image problem persists I'd love some guidance. Thx, Edwininlondon (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Thank you. A handful of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from SusunW
I'm putting a placeholder here and will review it in the next couple of days. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC) As I already reviewed the text at the peer review, a read-through since the changes were made indicates to me topic is well presented and comprehensive, with no major issues. It's a support from me. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
I'll take a shot at the refs here. All references appear to be from RS and a spot check during the peer review revealed no overt issues with close paraphrasing, OR, or mis-cited pages, etc. Formatting issues are noted below, but overall conforms with MOS, in my opinion, though were it me, I would list issn and oclc for any journal articles that had such identifiers as it makes it easier for people abroad to locate and/or request materials in my experience. version reviewed:
- Bundle the four refs after the 2nd sentence of death and legacy section.
- Betsy Bakker-Nort – biography 1st ref, should be Biography
- ref 54 fire should be capitalized
- ref 56 title should be in title case
- ref 77 goes to the search page, rather than a direct link to the article
- ref 78 again goes to a search page, rather than any article and I see nothing titled "Bakker-Nort". Perhaps a better way to avoid OR would be to state "While the national newspaper Het Dagblad published only a short notice of her death…" and remove the citation to the search page.
- Braun, after the : "The" should be capitalized
- de Haan's title shows "iav/iiav's" which should be IAV/IIAV's as these are acronyms/abbreviations for organizations.
- de Wilde is missing location, i.e. Assen and both "is" and "years" in the translations should be capitalized.
- In Gijsenbergh looks like there is a stray . after Cham (as in Cham, Switzerland)
- Posthumus-van der Goot is missing location, i.e. Utrecht; according to worldcat this was the 3rd revised edition, and oclc is 258044133, which should be added
- Presser: English translation should be in title case and “the” Hague should be capitalized.
That's it from me. Overall, very thankful you wrote the article on her. Well done. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this detailed review. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from BennyOnTheLoose
Happy to be challenged on any of my comments, expecially about prose, where I make no claims of expertise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Could a cropped version of the infobox image be used, with reduced white space around the subject?
- Done
Early activism
- "She was the 14th woman to enrol at the University of Groningen. In 1871, Jacobs had been the first.[14] She finished her studies four years" - maybe subsitiute the name for the second "she"?
- Done. Also realised the year is a bit ambiguous, so rephrased that as well
- "She finished her studies four years later" maybe amend to something like "...finished her degree..." or "completed her degree", as she later went on to complete a doctorate?
- Done
- "Bakker-Nort was the first female to earn a doctorate in law" - should this be "...the first woman..."?
- Done
- "...Bakker-Nort started to work as a lawyer and attorney in Groningen, which she would do until 1930, when the couple moved to the Hague, where she continued her legal work..." - when I first read this I expected there to be an interruption in her legal work, rather than just a change of location. If sources tell us that she did continue in the same line of work without a significnt gap, consider rewording.
- Done
- "among the first wave feminists" - it's not clear to me from this (without clicking the wikilink) whether Bakker-Nort was amongst those first wave feminists or not. Maybe state it, if she was, or add a few words about the first wave?
- Done. Changed the first sentence of the section, to make her part of the 1st wave
- "active suffrage" - I was unaware that this means the right to vote. It may be clear enough from the previous sentance what the term means, but just have a look again.
- Done. Added links for both active and passive in previous sentence
- The article has "Vereeniging voor Vrouwenkiesrecht (VVVK)" and "Association of Women Citizens (VVS)" & "Association of Women with Higher Education [nl] (VVAO)" - slight inconsistency, which I guess arises form there being a wikilink to VVVK and not the others. Shouldn't VVVK also have a translated title?
- Done. I'll make the red link go blue one day soon. I think it is notable.
Political Career
- "By 1918, Bakker-Nort was on the board of the VDB, one of two female board members, Mien van Itallie-Van Embden being the other" - maybe "By 1918, Bakker-Nort was one of two female board members on the board of the VDB, Mien van Itallie-Van Embden being the other"?
- Done
- "with the majority of the House being members of Christian parties, her arguments to stop the bill failed" - maybe add something like "and opposed this", as them being members of Christian parties was not the direct cause.
- Done
Death and legacy
- " reduce the rights of women based on the Bible," - I haven't read the source, but shouldn't this be something like "..based on their interpretation of the Bible,"?
- Done
- "She had donated, at some point in the 1930s," - maybe "At some point in the 1930s, she had donated"?
- Done
- "they moved all stolen materials to Moscow" - is it "all of these stolen materials"? Again, I've not looked at the source.
- Done
Lead
- I wonder if a little could be added to summarise more of the legacy part of the article?
- What do you think is best? Something like "According to VDB chairman Pieter Oud, Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task of leading the women's movement Jacobs had given her."
- That's fine. You could, optionally, consider adding summary of some comments by Braun too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Great work, Edwininlondon (and GA/PR reviewers). I've got a few questions and comments above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hopefully I have addressed your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. Happy to support. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Coventry ring road
Described as a "roller coaster" and a "Scalextric" by sources over the years, the Coventry ring road is either a marvel of engineering or the world's worst-designed road and a source of urban decay, depending on your point of view. Its multiple lanes, slip roads and short weaving distances make it a bit of a nightmare for drivers new to the area, something I've witnessed first-hand a few times over the years! The article goes into some detail, chronicling the history of the project from its early conception to completion, a mid-project redesign and later remodelling of one of the junctions and the road's reputation. All comments and feedback welcome. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Drive by comment
- The article seems somewhat under-illustrated, though the pickings on Commons are surprisingly slim. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Another drive by comment
- The "Junctions" section lists the junctions by number and states the roads they intersect with and the names of the following section of the ring road.
- On the source given I cannot see the junction numbers. Am I missing something? Or is there another source which could give these? If not, it may be better to replace the numbers with bullet points.
- Could it be stated somewhere that the "Beginning[s]" mentioned are clockwise from that junctiion?
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: per the request below, I have now overhauled the junctions list to be a table instead. I've also updated the source so that it uses a map that clearly shows the junction numbers, and clarified for each whether the "Ringway Swanswell" etc. names refer to the clockwise or anticlockwise section from that junction. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any reason why the coordinates are not just in the Junction column, perhaps in brackets after each junction number, rather than as a big block of footnotes within the article? Which is a little unusual. And if Notes has nothing in it it should be removed. And why the "0.0"s at the bottom of the "mi" and "km" columns? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I initially put them in their own column, per other UK road articles, but Imzadi1979 then refactored it. I personally did prefer it the way I had written it earlier today, which also had the detail about what the name of the road is at each stage, but I'm happy to go with the consensus on what's best. — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I much prefer it the way you had it before, that looks much more accessible to the uninitiated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, since I also agree with that, I have restored the original layout for now. While the general principles are there, it seems to me that on the detail, MOS:RJL doesn't enjoy consensus for UK roads anyway, as most of them that I can see don't follow its suggested layout. Even M5 motorway#Junctions, which is the actual example cited at MOS:RJL, it is formatted completely differently from the recommendation. The layout should be appropriate for the road in question IMHO. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:RJL is part of the Manual of Style, and the FA criteria require compliance with the MOS. At a bare minimum, the first two columns need to be removed for compliance. The repeat of J1 should actually repeat it at a minimum per how it's done at M-185 (Michigan highway), or the milepost should have been repeated as I did per Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky). Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: what are your thoughts on this? It seems like the name of the road between each junction is a useful piece of information to have here, and roughly corresponds to the "Location" column called for by MOS:RJL, so I'm not sure the benefit to readers of removing it. As for the loop returning to the first junction, I followed the format used at M60 motorway, which avoids listing the same junction twice in a similar way. Happy to be guided by consensus though on both these points. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with you, but I confess to having skimmed the relevant policy rather than read it in detail. I am hoping to recuse and do a full review of the article, which will give me context to offer an informed opinion. RL and other Wikipedia are currently conspiring against me, but if I don't start within 5 or 6 days, please give me a nudge. Courtesy ping to Imzadi1979. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild and Imzadi1979: yeah fair enough, looking forward to that as and when you have the time. I'm away myself over the weekend, so won't be able to get back to this seriously until next week anyway. As for the above, I'm confident we can come to a suitable consensus over it. It's good to use the guidelines where they make sense, which may or may not be the case here, but also WP:5P5 does urge us to use common sense over these things. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with you, but I confess to having skimmed the relevant policy rather than read it in detail. I am hoping to recuse and do a full review of the article, which will give me context to offer an informed opinion. RL and other Wikipedia are currently conspiring against me, but if I don't start within 5 or 6 days, please give me a nudge. Courtesy ping to Imzadi1979. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: what are your thoughts on this? It seems like the name of the road between each junction is a useful piece of information to have here, and roughly corresponds to the "Location" column called for by MOS:RJL, so I'm not sure the benefit to readers of removing it. As for the loop returning to the first junction, I followed the format used at M60 motorway, which avoids listing the same junction twice in a similar way. Happy to be guided by consensus though on both these points. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:RJL is part of the Manual of Style, and the FA criteria require compliance with the MOS. At a bare minimum, the first two columns need to be removed for compliance. The repeat of J1 should actually repeat it at a minimum per how it's done at M-185 (Michigan highway), or the milepost should have been repeated as I did per Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky). Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, since I also agree with that, I have restored the original layout for now. While the general principles are there, it seems to me that on the detail, MOS:RJL doesn't enjoy consensus for UK roads anyway, as most of them that I can see don't follow its suggested layout. Even M5 motorway#Junctions, which is the actual example cited at MOS:RJL, it is formatted completely differently from the recommendation. The layout should be appropriate for the road in question IMHO. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I much prefer it the way you had it before, that looks much more accessible to the uninitiated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I initially put them in their own column, per other UK road articles, but Imzadi1979 then refactored it. I personally did prefer it the way I had written it earlier today, which also had the detail about what the name of the road is at each stage, but I'm happy to go with the consensus on what's best. — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any reason why the coordinates are not just in the Junction column, perhaps in brackets after each junction number, rather than as a big block of footnotes within the article? Which is a little unusual. And if Notes has nothing in it it should be removed. And why the "0.0"s at the bottom of the "mi" and "km" columns? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Imzadi1979
- The junction list should be redone as a table per MOS:RJL.
- Done. — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I polished up the table for better compliance. Imzadi 1979 → 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- OpenStreetMap is user-editable content. It is a mapping service in wiki form, so it fails as a reliable source. There are better source options to use.
- Footnote 6 has the editor name is First Last order, while the other footnotes consistently use Last, First order.
- A KML would be a good addition, and then could be converted easily into a GeoJSON file so that the infobox could have an interactive map.
Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is an inconsistency in units of measurement. The length is always given in kilometers first, but any other mention of distance is given in miles first. My understanding is that the UK has only partially metricated, and road distances are one of the exceptions, so it would seem to follow that the length of this roadway should be given in miles first as well. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: Yes, that makes sense. I have amended to make it imperial first throughout, which seems the most consistent approach (much as I'd personally prefer it if all measurements went to metric for simplicity!) — Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "The road's circuit encompasses the old and new Coventry Cathedrals, much of Coventry University and the city's shopping areas" - does it encompass all of the shopping areas? If so, I would put a comma after university to make it clear that "much of" only relates to the uni
- That's all I got as far as the end of the Route description section - back for more later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the beginning of a review, I had actually been planning to ask if you would be able to do one already, so definitely much appreciated. Re the point above, I was a bit worried that if I add an Oxford comma in the location you mention, I'd probably have to go through and add one everywhere else. SO I have instead reordered the sentence to make it clear that the "much of" applies only to the university. — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "as immigrants from across the country moved in" - is it possible to be an immigrant from another part of the same country?
- "The council increased its lobbying of the government for permission and funding to the construct" - there's a stray "the" in there
- "cutting the ribbon at a ceremonial ceremony" - last two words are a bit repetitive.......
- "providing a grant of £232,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021) as part of total costs of £310,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021)" - both 1958 values can't equate to the same 2021 value, surely?
- "After compulsory were issued by late 1959" - missing word?
- "totalling £4.7 million (equivalent to £86,700,000 in 2021).[122] By 1971 this cost had risen to around £5.5 million (equivalent to £82,700,000 in 2021)" - inflated value of the larger value is lower than that of the smaller value.......?
- "but as of 2020 it is a full-time public car park" - either change to 2022 if this is still the case or change to past tense
- That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Harry
I lived in a Coventry for a while and still have friends and family there. I've long been interested in its post-war reconstruction and I like articles on transport infrastructure in general so this ticks several of my boxes! It's a very well put-together article. A few thoughts:
- The Butts/Skydome roundabout is currently being redeveloped, I think to relieve traffic into the city centre from the Holyhead Road; I'm sure this has been extensively covered in the local press.
- Is there anything in the sources about the unpopularity of the pedestrian subways? The council seem to be closing them or opening them up at every opportunity (eg the network under the Butts roundabout and the walking route to the railway station). There's some detail on this in Gould & Gould (p. 59); it also mentions the impact on Lady Herbert's Garden.
- This is hinted at but I wonder if you could source a statement that the narrow radius of the ring road has hampered economic development in areas just outside it?
- The culverting of the Sherbourne at the other end is mentioned, but is the culvert that starts just before the ring road in Spon End relevant?
- Some of the route description is a bit complex and difficult to follow, and I know the area. Photos and diagrams with good captions would help. Commons can be a treasure trove for photos but they might not be well described or categorised; perhaps try searching for local landmarks/buildings?
- I see you have some books referenced in full in footnotes and others using sfns and a bibliography. Is there a reason for that?
- I feel there's some repetition of the route description in the history and that the word count could be brought down by eliminating some of this.
- The prose could be tighter in places; there's redundancy in places where the same information could be conveyed with fewer words and the prose would flow better, see this edit for an example.
The prose critiques aren't anything too concerning. They're the same sorts of things I pick up in most FACs I review. I'm happy to discuss anything further, or I'm sure I'll be back to support after just a little bit more polish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Note
Just to note that I'm on vacation this week so may not have time to get to the above comments, but I have seen them and will deal with them ASAP hoefully either this week if there's time, or next week when I'm back home. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations
Bleed American
- Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.
While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American. We had previously taken this to FAC, but the nomination stalled after only receiving one support, so this is the second attempt. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
For any passer-bys, I can't seem to remove the error message with ref #116, even though it is defined. MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Very familiar with the album, one of my favorites.
- I am somewhat surprised not to see Andy Greenwald's book, Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, used as a source, since it includes discussion of Jimmy Eat World and Bleed American. You should be able to get the relevant parts from Google Books preview. Sellout: The Major Label Feeding Frenzy That Swept Punk by Dan Ozzi may also have something.
- Ping me when you're ready for me to continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: Added.[24][25] MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Trombino offered to work for free during the recording sessions, confident he would be reimbursed by the album's predicted commercial success.[13] " If I read this right, he wasn't working for free, he was just deferring payment until the band had cash.
- ""various popular songs". The source does not say popular.
- The music video for "The Middle" is described twice in the same paragraph, probably better the second time.
- "The music video for "Sweetness" shows the band in stationary " in stationary?
- "The band supported on Blink-182 and Green Day" strike "on"
- ""the Promise Ring" is double-linked.
- Greenwald's comments about "music, any music, equals salvation" as a theme of the record (page 107) seems worth including.
- "Greenwald said Bleed American going platinum was one factor in emo reaching mainstream media attention in mid-2002, alongside Vagrant Records have significant sales figures on its releases and Dashboard Confessional appearing on MTV Unplugged.[141] " Should "have" be "having"?
Image review: Images given are appropriately licensed, but could a sample be included under a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Easily could, we just haven't decided on which to use. "The Middle" is probably a good bet. dannymusiceditor oops 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Danny and myself were wondering, does the sample have to be of a certain section? For example, we were thinking the intro/first verse would be a better selection instead of, say, the chorus. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, we think the song's opening riff may be its biggest defining part. Unusual, for sure, but we firmly believe this kept the song memorable over the years. dannymusiceditor oops 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Generally you're going to want to pick something that is the subject of sourced commentary. See WP:SAMPLE for additional guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, we think the song's opening riff may be its biggest defining part. Unusual, for sure, but we firmly believe this kept the song memorable over the years. dannymusiceditor oops 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Danny and myself were wondering, does the sample have to be of a certain section? For example, we were thinking the intro/first verse would be a better selection instead of, say, the chorus. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Ippantekina
- Support I reviewed this article in the previous FAC and I am still happy with the prose. Great work. Ippantekina (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.
This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. I nominated this article for FA status back in May, but that nomination was archived due to a lack of feedback. I hope this is more successful the second time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Gilbert was selected as an architect following a competition." Since no one else is credited, I would strike "an". Which leads to the question, should French be credited as an architect in the infobox?
- I've removed the word "an". French was only responsible for the sculptural detail, so he probably should not be mentioned as architect in the infobox. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can anything more in the "site" section be said about the history of the location? I see some scattered info later in the article.
- I've moved some of that info further up. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Unlike most custom houses, which face the waterfront, the Alexander Hamilton Custom House faces inland toward Bowling Green.[11][16]" I wonder if it could be stated more clearly that it faces the one direction (north) where there is no nearby water.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Near the building's south end is space formerly used by the United States Postal Service, " if I recall correctly, this was for the Bowling Green Station of the New York post office, which might be worth mentioning.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The new New York Custom House was only the fourth building to be built under the Tarsney Act.[82]" Didn't the competition take place, not under the Tarsney Act, but under Section 3 of the 1899 act? Admittedly, they seem to be more or less the same.
- Technically yes, you are correct. Would it be better if I said that the Custom House was "only the fourth building to be built following the passage of the Tarsney Act"? Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "I'd capitalize Platt's and Quigg's titles.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- " The next February, during the 55th Congress, Platt and Quigg proposed bills to acquire the Bowling Green site, providing $5 million (about $136 million in 2020[a]) for land acquisition and construction." According to Congressional ProQuest, H.R. 9077, which became the authorizing act, was introduced by Rep. Philip Low (R-NY) on 2/14/1898. It came out of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on 2/6/1899, entirely rewritten, along with a report by a Congressman Mercer of that committee.
- I've reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The bill passed both houses on February 28, 1899, not during March. McKinley seems to have signed it on March 2.
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The selection of Gilbert was controversial, drawing opposition from Platt and several other groups" Platt was not a group. Also, it's worth a mention (see here that Platt's opposition was based in part on Gilbert not being a Republican, that being typical of Platt if you look him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed the word "other". I'm actually not surprised that Platt would oppose based on Gilbert's political party, either. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "that Gilbert was a "westerner" who had newly arrived to New York City," I'd change "to" to "in". And if he had moved to NYC, should he be referred to, as you do, as "Minnesota architect"?
- I've fixed the first issue and clarified that Gilbert was previously from Minnesota. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "A branch of the United States Postal Service" the United States Post Office Department, as we are pre-1971. And it was a station. Stations were usually within city limits, branches outside.
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "From 1974 on, the Custom House was vacant," Wasn't the post office still open?
- Yes it was. I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- All images of statues/sculptures will need tags for the original work in addition to the photo. Ditto photos of 2D works.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_ceiling_(40511s).jpg and File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_panels_(40521s).jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have now done that (courtesy ping to @Rhododendrites, since I added Template:Licensed-PD to his images). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_ceiling_(40511s).jpg and File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_panels_(40521s).jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:King's_Color-graphs_of_New_York_City6.jpg: source? Not sure what is referenced by the current image description
- I have removed this image. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:US_Customs_House_New_York_of_to-day._(1912)_(14782617492).jpg: is more specific tagging available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I have fixed this. Thanks for the image review. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Branford Steam Railroad
- Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Performing source spot-check at FAC's talk page, for this article version. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Round-up: Spotted some cases of original synthesis, but nothing too serious. Please give page numbers to newspaper source, as finding the passage can be pretty difficult without it. Will check one or two more frequently cited source later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- What does "exchanges freight" mean?
- Ah, that's one of the sentences I didn't rewrite when I redid the article last year. This is referring to Interchange (freight rail), where rail cars are transferred from one railroad company to another for continued transport. BSRR rail cars are transferred to the Providence and Worcester Railroad which runs dedicated trains to Fresh Pond Junction near New York City. At the docks, the BSRR transfers much of the trap rock from the quarry to barges. I have revised the article to state this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems a little strange that the lead states neither the length nor the gauge of the railway. It may also be helpful to overtly state that it is still running.
- I can specify standard gauge, but as 99% of U.S. railroads are standard gauge, it's usually assumed. I note that AirTrain JFK, a FA, does not mention the gauge in the lead, likely for this reason. The gauge is listed in the infobox. I have added the length to the lead section. That the line is still running is established by the use of "is" rather than "was" and the lead being in present tense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The infobox should only contain information already in the main article. It states that the track is standard gauge and gives the measurements for this, but I can't see this in the article. Have I read past it?
- To me, this is akin to saying in every article on a U.S. highway "traffic drives on the right". I feel it is wholly unnecessary, per WP:BLUESKY. And most every FA on a railroad or rail line I can find does things the same way I have here. Consider the featured articles City and South London Railway, Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, South Lake Union Streetcar, MAX Orange Line, MAX Yellow Line, MAX Red Line, Brill Tramway, Hastings line, Line 1 (Sound Transit), Manila Light Rail Transit System, Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, and Great North of Scotland Railway, all of which follow the same practice as I have here. To explicitly state the gauge in the article's prose would be going against best practice for articles on railroads, and indeed you often won't really find sources explicitly stating the line is standard gauge because all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- You give the precise dimensions of the track in the infobox. This is not something you can expect a normal reader to know, it is not BLUESKY. It needs to be in the article.
- So you think all of those FAs are wrong then? It's standard gauge. Every single common carrier railroad in the U.S. is standard gauge. Again, I unfortunately cannot give you a source that says "the Branford Steam Railroad is standard gauge" because it's assumed in all sources that, just like every other railroad in the U.S., the tracks are standard gauge. I've checked through all the sources on the company's founding and construction and opening, and none of them mention the gauge. If I put the gauge in the body, then I'd, technically speaking, be violating the FA criteria for it not having a citation. I don't know what you want me to do here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- You give the precise dimensions of the track in the infobox. This is not something you can expect a normal reader to know, it is not BLUESKY. It needs to be in the article.
- To me, this is akin to saying in every article on a U.S. highway "traffic drives on the right". I feel it is wholly unnecessary, per WP:BLUESKY. And most every FA on a railroad or rail line I can find does things the same way I have here. Consider the featured articles City and South London Railway, Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, South Lake Union Streetcar, MAX Orange Line, MAX Yellow Line, MAX Red Line, Brill Tramway, Hastings line, Line 1 (Sound Transit), Manila Light Rail Transit System, Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, and Great North of Scotland Railway, all of which follow the same practice as I have here. To explicitly state the gauge in the article's prose would be going against best practice for articles on railroads, and indeed you often won't really find sources explicitly stating the line is standard gauge because all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The infobox should only contain information already in the main article. It states that the track is standard gauge and gives the measurements for this, but I can't see this in the article. Have I read past it?
- "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus". "BSRR" - see MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
- Abbreviation now introduced at the first mention of Branford Steam Railroad in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Events outside of the area set in motion the line's conversion to an industrial railroad hauling rock." I don't see that this adds anything, and suggest deletion.
- Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Fisk initially responded to this demand by opening a quarry at Pine Orchard in January 1902." How is this connected to the BSRR?
- That really belongs in an article about Fisk (which I plan to write one day), not this article. I've removed it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "another railroad, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension". You have the railroad doing the building. Suggest rephrasing.
- I don't see an issue with this sentence. The railroad did indeed build the extension. It seems pointless in my opinion to instead say "the workers of the Damascus Railroad built an extension". This type of wording, saying X was built by a railroad company, is pretty standard for rail articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. As you say "X was built by a railroad company". If by Damascus Railroad you mean a company called this, say so. Perhaps 'another company, known as the Damascus Railroad'?
- Wording is now "On July 18, 1905, Fisk received a charter for another railroad company, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fine.
- Wording is now "On July 18, 1905, Fisk received a charter for another railroad company, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. As you say "X was built by a railroad company". If by Damascus Railroad you mean a company called this, say so. Perhaps 'another company, known as the Damascus Railroad'?
- "a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford". "expand" seems an odd thing for a railroad to do. Perhaps 'extend'?
- No objection to changing to extend. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "where he planned to open a quarry." Suggest "a" → 'the'.
- Good catch, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and advocated for support from the town's residents for the railroad extension, finding most residents supportive. Despite local support". "... support ... supportive ... support". Perhaps a bit of variation?
- Wording changed. In order, I have now used "support", "in favor", and "local enthusiasm". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "to exercise eminent domain". Could we have an in line explanation per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so" in MOS:LINKSTYLE.
- I thought the concept of eminent domain was a fairly well known thing, but I've added an inline description regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the US I imagine it is reasonably broadly understood. Outside perhaps mostly by lawyers.
- "pronounced the bill as legal". This may be a USEng thing, but in BritEng this would read better without the "as".
- I think your suggested wording is better, actually. Changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "allowing the modified charter to take effect." What modification?
- This is discussed in the previous paragraph. "In March 1907, Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford, where he planned to open a quarry." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "While the Damascus Railroad allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Don't you mean "Damascus Railroad" → 'new charter'?
- Changed to "While the modified Damascus Railroad charter allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter"; "the Branford Steam Railroad would apply for an amendment to its charter". Exactly which body was chartered?
- Both were chartered. In the earlier days of railroads in the U.S., railroad companies were required to obtain a charter from the legislature(s) of the state(s) they served before they could start construction or operation. The BSRR was chartered first, on March 19, 1903. The Damascus Railroad, a separate company, was chartered on July 18, 1905. Fisk was heavily involved with both companies, and in 1909 the Damascus Railroad came under the control of the Branford Steam Railroad. While nominally independent, the Damascus Railroad was always directly dependent on the Branford Steam Railroad, its only connection to the national rail network. The charters laid out what each company could and could not do (the Branford Steam Railroad's charter authorized it to haul both passengers and freight, while the Damascus Railroad's charter specifically only authorized the transport of freight). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "along with improved interchange facilities with the New Haven Railroad." This is the first mention of the New Haven Railroad and of interchange facilities. Perhaps they could be explained earlier? Ie, prior to improvement.
- The New Haven Railroad is the same as the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad; the name "The New Haven" is commonly used to refer to it. I have mentioned this at the first mention of the company's full name in the body.
- "allow the Branford Steam Railroad to assume control of the Damascus Railroad by purchasing its stock." Could you clarify throughout the article when you are using a term to describe a physical structure, eg a railroad, and when an incorporated body, eg a company.
- I'm not really seeing any issue here. In the sentence you've quoted here, it's pretty clear at least to me that the Branford Steam Railroad (the company) would be taking control of the Damascus Railroad (the company). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found myself repeatedly having to reread sentences or paragraphs to work out what was being referred to. Using the same term to describe different things and expecting a reader to work it out from context is confusing.
- I have modified a few sentences to attempt to address your concern. Please let me know your thoughts and if there's still issues, identify the sentences in question directly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found myself repeatedly having to reread sentences or paragraphs to work out what was being referred to. Using the same term to describe different things and expecting a reader to work it out from context is confusing.
- "By April 29, 1909, the General Assembly approved". "By" - is the precise date not known?
- I checked the 1909 edition of Special Acts and Resolutions Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, which confirms the precise date is April 29, 1909. Not sure why I said "by" but I have modified the text accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "the General Assembly approved", 1. The general assembly of what? 2. What is a General Assembly? 3. Why the upper case initial letters?
- The Connecticut General Assembly is Connecticut's state legislature. The upper case letters are necessary as it is a proper noun. I've linked it, and specifically said "but in December 1902, Fisk petitioned the Connecticut General Assembly, the state's legislative branch, for permission to convert the railroad to steam power." now so it's clear what is being referred to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "by crossing most streets at grade". Possibly this is clear to US readers. It isn't elsewhere. What does "at grade" mean?
- This wording is used extensively in the sources I am using. In the U.S., we use the term grade crossing, which in British English is known as a level crossing. The phrase "at grade" is apparently specific to North America, and is defined as "on the same level". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- This needs explaining in the article.
- I don't really think it's necessary, but I've added it since you insist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This needs explaining in the article.
- "intersect with a diamond crossing". Is it possible t explain what a diamond crossing is in line?
- Realizing now that link is a redirect to double junction and doesn't do a good job explaining what a diamond crossing is. Definition added, though it's a commonly understood term as far as railroads go. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "something the Branford Steam Railroad was strongly opposed to." Why?
- The source says it "would involve serious complications unnecessary inconvenience and expense." That was the ruling of the Connecticut Railroad Commission. I know the BSRR was also opposed to this happening, for similar reasons (pretty obvious considering Fisk repeatedly fought the Shore Line Railroad). There was also a law on the books in Connecticut (for all I know, it might still be in effect) prohibiting any crossings between steam railroads and electric railroads, for safety reasons. I've changed the wording a bit here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link "injunction".
- Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and again obtained an injunction forcing the Shore Line to cease construction". Is it known when?
- The article in The Day says that the injunction was prepared on a hurry call from Fisk and was served around 4 AM on February 5. I've added detail on this to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "construction, which had begun in earnest on the night of February 5." This may fit more naturally into the previous sentence.
- Agreed, done as part of my remedy to your previous comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "As such, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered". I am not sure what "As such" adds - or even means.
- The Superior Court was enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Open to a different way to word this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed the wording here now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Superior Court was enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Open to a different way to word this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Optional: it would be helpful to be told what "trap rock" was and how it was used.
- Now defined at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "for the construction of the nearby Lake Gaillard." Just checking that the spur was constructed so that a lake could be built?
- Yes. Lake Gaillard is an artificial lake, which was built to serve as a large water reservoir (and continues to serve this purpose today). It's over a mile wide and a mile and a half long. It took 7 years of construction to be completed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "A number of locomotives were used within the 300-acre (120 ha) quarry complex." What/which quarry complex?
- The Totoket Mountain quarry, which the Damascus Railroad had its charter modified to connect to. I say in the body, "The quarry quickly grew, soon becoming the primary customer of the Branford Steam Railroad." Indeed, it is now the one and only customer of the railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I think it was the plural in "committed $750,000 to develop quarries" which threw me.
- "with fronting 1.25 miles (2.01 km) in length." What is fronting?
- I haven't been able to find a good definition of this. I was using the term used in the source here. I've removed it as I can't clearly explain what the source is claiming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'with the quarry rockface being worked extending 1.25 miles'?
- I'm a little skeptical of the source, so I've decided it's best not to include the information at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'with the quarry rockface being worked extending 1.25 miles'?
- "Ownership of the company changed several times". Which company? (Quarry or railroad?)
- Both. They have been owned by the same companies ever since the New Haven Trap Rock Company came about. Today, the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry are both wholly owned by Tilcon Connecticut. Wording revised to "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times..." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- There seem to be an excessive number of very short paragraphs.
- I've combined as many as I could. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I've responded to every comment now, let me know your thoughts when you get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I have come back on some of your responses above. If I haven't commented, I am happy with your response or change. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
David Fuchs
Review in progress, will be posting in the next 72 hours or so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Fallout (video game)
Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.
I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I have finished a source check here, and will be implementing changes to the article to address it soon. After I am done, you can go ahead and do a spot check. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I am finished; you can go ahead a proceed with your second spot check now. Any problems you find should be few and far between or relatively minor. Lazman321 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll look into it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lazman321, seems good to me. Changed to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll look into it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I am finished; you can go ahead a proceed with your second spot check now. Any problems you find should be few and far between or relatively minor. Lazman321 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I have finished a source check here, and will be implementing changes to the article to address it soon. After I am done, you can go ahead and do a spot check. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiley Rutledge
- Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
- I think this is covered by MOS:FULLNAME's
the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence
; hence we have Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Barack Hussein Obama II, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., James Madison Jr., etc.
- I think this is covered by MOS:FULLNAME's
- "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
- Done.
- "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112 Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
- Done.
- "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
- Done.
- It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
- I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
- It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
- I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
- " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
- Reworded.
- "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
- Removed.
- " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
- That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
- " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
- Good catch; fixed.
- "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
- I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.
- I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
Kavyansh
- Support: I have read the article multiple times, and had reviewed it during the peer review. The changes after my reviewed version have just improved the article. My only suggestion would be to add "|ref=none" in the further reading works. Otherwise, a well researched, comprehensive, well illustrated article that uses high quality sources. A first-rate work which fully deserves the bronze star! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kavyansh! I have added
|ref=none
as suggested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kavyansh! I have added
Comments from Mike Christie
A beautifully written and interesting article. I can find very little to comment on. A couple of minor points below:
- "He wrote to Biddle eschewing all interest in the position": if I understand the intended meaning, "disclaiming" would be more precise.
- Done.
- "but during the era of the Warren Court they garnered considerable acceptance": suggest "gained" instead of "garnered", to connote that it was a change.
- Done.
- A MoS issue -- you have both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes; per the MoS you have to pick one or the other. I changed one example before realizing there were multiple examples of both.
- I've tried to change them all to unspaced em dashes; let me know if you see any I've missed.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review and the kind words, Mike Christie! Responses above. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. An outstanding article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Rachel Dyer
- Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a novel by John Neal (writer), considered by scholars to be his best. Nobody's ever heard of it, but it is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials and had a clear impact on later works by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Whittier, and Whitman. If you have heard of it, that may be only because of the book's preface, which is somehow more famous than the novel itself. It deals with universal themes like justice, sexual frustration, and cultural pluralism. I've taken a few articles through FAC and one of them was about a novel, so I feel pretty equipped for this nomination. The article just went through GAN review, so it's somewhat polished already. I'm excited to read and respond to whatever comments people have to help me further improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Rachel_Dyer_by_John_Neal_Title_Page.jpg: it's unlikely this is creative enough to warrant copyright protection
- Good point. I just switched the licensing tag to {{PD-ineligible}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link fixed and licensing tag switched to {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review! Let me know if you find something else or if you think the licensing tags should be changed again. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Would you say that the nomination has passed your image review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh
- "around genuine historical figure George Burroughs" — I doubt whether we need 'genuine' here.
- We can probably get by without it. My concern was distinguishing Burroughs as a real person from history, versus Neal's fictional character, Rachel Dyer. Deleted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link Witchcraft in the prose
- Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "in which the author" — "in which Neal"
- Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "of English common law's" — capitalize 'c' in 'common'
- Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have repeated 'George Burroughs' many times, when we can simply write 'Burroughs'
- I removed 4 Georges. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "... highlights the relative value placed on human life in either era" — According to whom? should be specified in the text.
- Fair. Names added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Rachel Dyer was published the same year as Noah Webster's first dictionary." — Is there any connection between these both. If not, is it worth mentioning?
- I just rewrote that part. I believe I have made the connection clearer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "His choice to" — Whose?
- Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "In this way, argue the scholars Watts & Carlson" — Better would be to write "according to the scholars ...". Also, any reason why we have not been introduced to these distinguished gentlemen by their first names?
- I took your suggestion on rewording the sentence and I also added first names. I now have Carlson's full name written out twice in one section, but it feels wrong to use only his last name when Watts's name is fully written out right next to the second instance. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "
one of ''[[Blackwood's Magazine]]'''s
" — "one of ''[[Blackwood's Magazine]]''{{'s}}
"
- Good catch. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "William Blackwood accepted the story" — perhaps 'Scottish publisher William Blackwood accepted the story"
- Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "After returning to his native Portland, Maine in 1827" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
- If you got paid a nickel for every missing geocomma you have found in something I've written... Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "in five issues of The New York Mirror in" — According to our article, 'The' is not in the title, thus would not be italicized, and 'New-York' would be hyphenated.
- Good catch. That's the kind of thing I like getting right. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Burroughs was well-known for" — 'famous'?
- Sure! Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "He wrote it, he said, "hoping it ..." — Optional: "According to Neal, he wrote them "hoping it ..."
- I like yours better. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "it is clear that he wrote" — can remove 'it is clear that'. If it is that clear, we don't need to specify it.
- Indeed. Deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Chapter One of Rachel Dyer is preceded by a three-page preface" — Doesn't the preface always precede the first chapter?
- Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Neal wrote the latter in 1825 for Blackwoods Magazine as an" — It is "Blackwood's Magazine", with that quote mark which Neal omitted, but we should not!
- Good catch. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Washington Irving as a copy of Joseph Addison" — Is 'copy' the most appropriate word?
- Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- ""I shall never write what is now worshipped [sic] under the name of classical English ... the deadest language I ever met with", Neal said" — Avoid starting a sentence with a quotation. Same with " "Wherever Neal's imagination has been employed"
- Sure. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "since Seventy-Six was republished in London in 1840" — Well, the classic error. Link 'Seventy-Six' to Seventy-Six (novel), not 76 (number)
- Good catch! Kind of embarrassing since I wrote Seventy-Six (novel) and brought it through FAC myself. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The reader might benefit from knowing who 'Fritz Fleischmann' is.
- Added (earlier in the article). Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ref#24: "Pethers 2012, p. 24–25" — pp.
- Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Excellent article! Just few nitpicks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: And an excellent list of nitpicks. I really appreciate you taking the time to read it through, follow the Wikilinks, and even check the coding behind the apostrophes. I feel that I have resolved all your comments and the article is better as a result. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great! Happy to support the article as it meets the criteria. I always enjoy reviewing articles that interest me, and it is pleasure to read articles like this one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
HF - support
I can review but it'll be a couple days Hog Farm Talk 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- " Neal expanded Rachel Dyer after returning to his hometown, Portland," - in the lead recommend making it clear that this is Portland, Maine; while Maine is mentioned earlier in the lead IMO it isn't obvious that Neal lived in Maine
- Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the mix of historical and fictional figures in the plot, maybe note upon reference in the plot that Rachel Dyer isn't a real figure or (presumably) based on one? The tangle of real and fictional people reminds of reading Rifles for Watie as a kid and trying to keep track of which officers were real and which weren't. I know Dyer's status is discussed later in the article, but it leaves the reader wondering until then
- Good point. I added a phrase in parentheses stating her purely fictional status. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "In that way, Neal anticipated many 21st-century historians' arguments that the witch hysteria grew from colonists' anxieties born of recent wars with Indigenous nations" - recommend inline attribution to the author who wrote this
- Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "With Tituba and John Indian the only couple in the household" - the only reference to John Indian I can find the article, I would suggest some sort of gloss to indicate what kind of role he plays in the story
- I added a reference to John Indian as Tituba's husband at her first appearance in the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Many in Portland had rejected him based on controversy surrounding his earlier novels and articles for British magazines" why where these controversial? Was it that he was publishing for the Brits not long after the War of 1812, or were his works accused of lewdness or something?
- Neal included a few well-known local Portland figures in his earlier novels (particularly Errata). He called out his old schoolmaster for physical abuse and his first employer for shady business practices. His pieces in the British magazines included some biting criticism of American authors, written by Neal behind the thin veil of an assumed English pen name, Carter Holmes. So many Portlanders felt like he was selling his hometown and his country short for a profit and for a leg-up in his literary career. I rewrote that sentence a bit to make it a little less mysterious. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "is now worshipped [sic]" - why sic? Isn't the double-p spelling the more common anyways?
- Looking it up just now, it appears that double-p is the British standard while single-p is the American standard. He uses "critick" and other archaic spellings, so I figured his was one of those. I'll remove the [sic]. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "A second edition was not released until it was republished by facsimile in 1964." [from the lead] vs, "nd never saw a second edition, though it was first republished by facsimile with an original introduction by John D. Seelye in 1964" [from the body]. So was the 1964 facsimile a second edition or not?
- Good point! I added "in Neal's lifetime" to the second instance to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Thank you very much for reading through the article and writing out these comments. I believe they are all addressed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Title (EP)
This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Aoba47
- The lead says the EP received mixed reviews, but only the negative aspects are highlighted.
- Added the positive aspect.
- It may be worthwhile to link catchiness in the "the catchiest stuff" quote.
- Linked.
- I'd remove the drum kit link in "the drums, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, and bass" and the piano link in "the piano, baritone saxophone, and hammond organ" to avoid a sea of blue and both of these instruments are recognizable to a majority of readers.
- Agreed on both.
- I'd change the ballad link to sentimental ballad as I believe that is more accurate and reflective of this type of music.
- Done.
- For Citation 41, there appears to be an author named for the article (i.e. Ians). It's not much of a by-line, but I'd include it in the citation for completion sake.
- I suspect that might be short for Indo-Asian News Service but I could be wrong.
The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would change "and plays the percussion instrument" to "and plays percussion" as the current wording sounds off to me.
Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Elias
- Article's prose is looking good so far, although some concerns present themselves.
The standout one - the article says that the EP "received mixed reviews"; however, no source directly says this. We need to be careful with summarising reception like this, since this counts as novel synthesis and goes against the original research policy. Does Metacritic aggregate reviews for EPs? They might help.
- Metacritic usually picks up releases with more than four mainstream reviews so this one didn't get a page, unfortunately. However, I think a summary sentence is necessary and "mixed reviews" is the best way of putting it. A true example of synthesis would be if I said "Every critic in the universe raved about the EP and thought Trainor's vocals resembled Mariah Carey"
- Ah, I see. With the reviews using a five-star system to indicate a positive, negative, or mediocre review, I suppose I'll let this one slide as a summary sentence. Usually I'm more critical of things like these in song articles, where multiple, separate reviews for songs are rare, and it's harder to make value judgments of commentary. Consider this resolved
Minor nitpick - "It additionally entered charts", shouldn't this be "It also entered charts"?
- Done.
"Trainor's eponymous 2009 release" we can simplify this to "Meghan Trainor (2009)" since the previous sentence doesn't mention her name and there's no concern with repetition.
- Probably it would cause confusion to any readers that don't understand italics demarcate album titles.
- We could sidestep that by changing "These included ..." to "these albums included ..."
- I see that the above suggestion has been implemented, though I'm still keen on simplifying "eponymous ... release". Both album and release are already in the previous sentence, so there's some clunkiness in here
- More to come. If I black out and forget this discussion exists (which I often do) please do not hesitate to ping here or on my talk. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 01:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"Background and development" is very well-written! Not a lot to say about it other than this, can we switch "her artists and repertoire" to "Epic Records's artists and repertoire division" for clarity?
- Switched.
For the "Music and lyrics" section, I've added some commas and semicolons in places where I think they were missing, as well some (hopefully) minor copyedits. Diff to visualize. Feel free to revert some of these. Otherwise, this section is pretty good.
- The copyedits look good to me, though I really prefer making all the changes myself, lol.
- That's neat to know. I'm just concerned with asking editors to make really really minor and nitpicky changes that would be resolved faster if I were to boldly do them myself.
"Epic Records released the EP as a ... digital download four days later." - "released the EP in compact disc (CD) and digital download formats"
- Hmm, I'm not sure about using "in" in the sentence with "formats". Can we keep the existing wording if it's not too much of an issue?
- Fuck, miswrote this, I meant to write as "released the EP through CD and download formats" etc.
"The October 3, 2014, digital release of 'All About That Bass' ... shared an identical track list." this would fit better in the second paragraph, preferably after the opening sentence
- The second paragraph is about singles and the first one is about release formats for the EP. Since it shares an identical tracklist (aka basically is the EP), I think it goes in the first paragraph.
- Perhaps it's because of the way it's currently worded that made me think it was out of place. That sentence alone is giving me a lot of details, overwhelming me. I would suggest trimming the release dates for the German-speaking countries
- I hope the revised wording addressed your concern.
- Way better; thank you
The body shaming wikilink can be expanded to "shaming thin women" to reduce WP:EASTEREGG issues
- Done.
"The title track became a trend" hard to parse. -> "The title track went viral" might be better
- Worded this a bit differently and I kind of prefer to link to Viral marketing instead since the other one is too general.
- Fair enough
"various television shows." she also performed this on concerts
- Added, sans the Jingle Ball Tour which isn't noteworthy enough for the lead in my opinion.
- I was referring to the wording in "Release and promotion", but nonetheless good catch
- Added there too.
Also performed some copyedits on the "Critical reception" section. Diff to visualize. Again, feel free to revert anything here."...as 'soulful' and 'highly resonant' and deemed it catchy" you can simplify this to 'soulful, highly resonant, and catchy'
- Done.
"Others criticized the repetitive lyrical themes on Title given its short duration. I don't understand the "short duration" bit.
- The criticism seemed to come from the fact that the EP is short in duration but still features repetitive lyrical themes.
- I see, this explains things. Though I imagine there is a clearer way to express this meaning in the article, no?
- Changed to "despite", can't think of simpler wording than that.
Is it possible to split the critical reception section into two paragraphs, dividing the positive/not-very-negative details from the more critical ones?
- Compared to other paragraphs in the article, two split paragraphs here would stick out and look too short.
- I'll allow it. There is still some cohesion in this one paragraph, so a split isn't too necessary
- Omg, thanks for allowing it!
- Tables and lists are okay.
- Glad to hear that.
- That is all from me. The article covers all the important details of the EP with sufficient comprehension, and apart from the stuff I pointed out, it's written and researched pretty well! Ran Earwig for any copyvio; no glaring issues found. Will support(tm) once all my concerns have been addressed. Well done for another great article, Marano.
- elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)-
- With regards to prose,
fivetwo concerns remain. I've striked the ones that are already addressed.
- @Troubled.elias: Should be all done now I think.--NØ 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan, great! Nothing left for me to do in here - Support. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 23:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan, great! Nothing left for me to do in here - Support. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
- With regards to prose,
-
Image review (Pass)
Will also do this since I have free time. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Meghan Trainor Title EP Album Cover.png - infobox image and cover art; FUR is good. ALT text is fine. For the source link, including an archived version would help for posterity and verifiability.
- Included an archive.
- File:KK Fano.JPG - licensed to public domain by the photographer, a Wikipedia user. It shows Kadish in a recording studio, which is appropriate given its placement in the article. ALT text is sufficient.
- Agreed.
- File:Meghan Trainor (15996126761).jpg - optional, but this photo looks too big on my screen, so I would recommend doing |upright=0.7 on it. Flickr licensing is verified. There's ALT text, although only the first sentence is really essential; try to keep them short and avoid oversharing.
- Shortened alt text; the picture looks fine on desktop as well as mobile for me, though, and looks too small with upright. Also in the past I have been discouraged from modifying image sizes.
- Thanks for clipping. From my observations of FAC throughout the months, it seems like using fixed px size isn't allowed. Scaling is fine - see MOS:UPRIGHT
- The image review is a pass - the scaling suggestion remains, although I would not let it impede my passing elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) - Many thanks for this, Elias!--NØ 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Pseud 14
Placeholder, going to provide comments soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Article seems to be in good shape. Here are a few comments/suggestions from me:
- but considered the lyrics too repetitive given its short duration and questioned what else Trainor is capable of doing musically – perhaps you can be direct by saying “but considered the lyrics too repetitive and questioned Trainor’s musicality (or musical talent)”
- three albums of material she had written – three albums from material she had written..
- felt a strong song-writing – believe either is correct, but be consistent with use of songwriting or song-writing
- due to its doo-wop pop production - perhaps replace production with either "style", "theme" or "sound"
- I would probably unlink either girl power or women empowerment, as I think they are both synonymous.
- Same with "body image" and "self-acceptance", as they tend to be self-explanatory, to avoid WP:OVERLINK
- That's all I have. Another solid Meghan Trainor related article here. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the really helpful review, Pseud 14. I really appreciate it! All done.--NØ 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to support this article for promotion.
- If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback as well on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
Placeholder FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The EP debuted at number 15 on the Billboard 200 and sold 171,000 copies in the United States." Is this figure in total or just for the debut week?
- It's the total figure. I'd go with something like "debuted at number 15 with 171,000 copies sold" if it were for the debut week.
- "These albums included Meghan Trainor (2009), and her 2010 albums I'll Sing with You and Only 17." - repetitive prose ("these albums included ... albums").
- Fixed.
- The release and promotion section lists three singles from the EP, yet the EP infobox only mentions "All About the Bass" as its single.
- "Lips Are Movin" was only included on the 2015 full-length and "Husband" served as a single from that as well. Though not released in the promotional run for the EP, I considered this relevant to mention here.
- What makes N-Magazine a high-quality reliable source?
- Removed.
- Ref. 4 - Nantucket Today can be linked to The Inquirer and Mirror.
- Done.
- Us Weekly is a subpar source and should generally be avoided in an FA.
- Eliminated.
- Ref. 58 returns a 'not found' result.
- Fixed.
I have made some changes here to make minor copy-edits, eliminate prose redundancy and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Let me know if I messed up something or if you don't see them as improvements. FrB.TG (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
To come soon. ♦ jaguar 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Formatting
- You might consider using Template:Cite interview for ref 5 instead
- Done.
- Is the title of ref 56 intentional?
- Yes, it doesn't go to the right link with any alternate titling.
- Assuming USA Today is meant to have a link in ref 67
- Yes! Thanks for catching this.
- jpc (last ref) seems to be stylized in lowercase? Not sure if should be here as well
- Seems to be an abbreviation of "Jazz Pop Classic" so I figured it probably goes in caps.
- Reliability
- Songwriter Universe seems kind eh in this regard, but as an interview it's probably fine
- Agreed, I probably wouldn't use it for critical commentary but I deemed it a quality interview for background information.
- Well the Wikipedia page for Stereogum doesn't make it sound all that reliable, but that site itself seems high-quality reporting in regards to the subject matter
- The critic cited has contributed to several prestigious publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone (Full list). I do think its usage in this particular article is important and irreplaceable.
- Verifiability
Wizards of Waverly Place
This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging previous collaborators: @JAYFAX: @Heartfox: @Some Dude From North Carolina: @SandyGeorgia: @ImaginesTigers: @Casliber: @Allied45:
- Pinging editors who provided a review on the Hannah Montana FA nomination: @TheDoctorWho: @Aoba47: @Panini!: @Pamzeis: @TheJoebro64: @FrB.TG: @TheSandDoctor:
- Pinging the reviewer of the Wizards GA nomination: @LM150:
I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review - passed
Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Aoba47
- These two terms, wizard (from the lead) and wizards-in-training (from the article), link to different articles and I would be consistent with one or the other.
- Changed both to Magician (fantasy).
- Did any scholarly sources discuss the competition aspect of the series or Max being temporarily turned into a woman?
- I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
- I'd revise this part, such as the Quinceañera., into something like such as having a quinceañera. I think the use of the determiner (i.e. the) to be a little awkward, and I'm not sure the italics are necessary. Even though it is a foreign language word, I think it has passed into the English lexicon to the point that it is not entirely necessary.
- I'm uncertain about "claimed" in Murrieta claimed he changed the family's surname. Unless this claim is more contentious, I'd use something more neutral like "said".
- Done both above.
- I'd avoid one-word quotes as they are not particularly beneficial in my opinion. This comment is tied specifically to "edgy", "dumb", "weird", and "heartbroken". I think it would be better to paraphrase these and focus on more impactful quotes, and I'd encourage you to look throughout the article to see if I had missed any others.
- There are a few spots where the quotes need clearer attribution in the prose. This is in reference to "slightly goofy", "comic relief", "sweet and sassy", and "absurdly hilarious". As with my above point, I'd look throughout the article to see if there. are any other quotes without clear attribution.
- I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
- I have a question about this part, after Murrieta left the program in April. Is there any information on why he left the show?
- I have added a brief explanation on this.
- I have a comment about this part, with the episode depicting the family's wizard competition. I have received and seen the following note in the FAC space a fair bit. I would avoid the sentence structure "with X verb-ing" as I have been told that is not appropriate for FA writing. I'd look throughout the article for any other instances of this and revise where necessary.
- Fixed a couple of these I think.
- I have a few comments for this part, while reviewing the video game, Jack DeVries said that the series was not as much of a rip-off as people might expect. This is the first time the article mentions the video game so it is somewhat jarring. I also think the rip-off criticism would benefit from further expansion because it seems more like a brief mention at the moment.
- I am not sure of the value of this sentence, The show was also compared to Bewitched. It does not really convey that much information so I'd either remove it or go into more detail.
- I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
- I hate to be this person, but what makes Plugged In a high-quality source? I also found it a little jarring to have a single, more religious citation used in the article.
- I would suggest the religious source works well for a comment on angels, but correct me if I'm wrong. I can't find it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list.
- I think the following two sentences could be combined to be more concise: Disney Interactive Studios released two video games based on the series for the Nintendo DS. They released Wizards of Waverly Place in August 2009, and Wizards of Waverly Place: Spellbound in November 2010, respectively. The sentences are also somewhat repetitious, specifically the repetition of "released".
- Fixed.
I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!
- I support this FAC based on the prose. Wonderful work with everything and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from LM150
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention again! Just some initial comments after a quick scan..
- There are some short sentences which could probably be combined. Examples: The program last aired on January 6, 2012. The Russo family is depicted as working class. Special effects were typically used in the series.
- I have fixed these three examples.
- Is this the right wording? made the children mixed-race. At first, it sounded odd as I was expecting something like "wrote the children as mixed-race". But maybe it's okay.
- I've decided to go with "wrote as".
- The series ended to allow its actors to pursue more mature roles[42] - I don't doubt this, but I couldn't find this TV series in the source. -- LM150 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Great @SatDis:, mostly happy to support, some suggestions –
- In the Development and Casting section, is it necessary to state that Gomez "moved to Los Angeles" twice?
- This sentence should be split.. it's quite wordy: Vince Cheung and Ben Montanio became the new showrunners and executive producers alongside Greenwald and Gomez revealed in July that it would be the final season of the program.
- Also, there might be a better word that "revealed". Maybe announced?
- "The children attempt to live life normally" - may sound better as "The children try to live normal lives"
- "During the airing of the fourth season" - may sound better as "While the fourth season was on air" LM150 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from theJoebro64
Marking my spot—should get to the review sooner rather than later JOEBRO64 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you need "portrayed by" in the parenthesis, just (Selena Gomez) should suffice
- Any reason you're not providing the actors for Justin and Max even though you provide Alex's? I think you should for consistency
- Fixed both above.
- ... hones her supernatural abilities while doing so I think this is a little unclear. Maybe change to develops her supernatural abilities over the course of the series?
- While the series contains fantasy elements, the main themes depicted include the focus on family, friendship, and adolescence. I'm a little confused by this—I'm not sure how it being a fantasy series contrasts with its themes.
- Addressed both above.
- I've noticed the article's a tad inconsistent regarding the use of the serial comma. I'd just do a read-through to address it based on your personal preference.
- McNamara noted the show did not rely on shtick. WP:SAID: noted implies something is a statement of fact, so it's a word you want to avoid when writing a reception section. Not to mention—was McNamara writing this as a positive or a negative?
- such as the lackluster computer animation of a griffin Likewise, we can't call something "lackluster" in Wikivoice, per WP:NPOV.
Nothing else to say. Good job! JOEBRO64 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you @TheJoebro64: I believe I have addressed all of the above. SatDis (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have my support JOEBRO64 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64: Thanks for taking the time to review! SatDis (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- See this discussion re the reliability of IB Times, which you use in a couple of places.
- The New York Post is also a generally unreliable source.
- Mashable is also a dubious source, but I think you need to replace it anyway as you have it citing a release date for the Malaysian adaptation, but the article itself only says the release was planned for that date. Releases can get delayed, after all.
- I'm also concerned about PopSugar -- this makes it sound as if it accepts pieces by non-staff writers, and searching the RS noticeboard comes up with negative opinions.
- I see some inconsistencies in the cite formatting. For example, [96] has both the website and publisher parameters, [68] has neither, [29] has website but no publisher, and [76] has publisher but no website. Any consistent rule for when to use each parameter is fine, but I can't see what your rule might be here.
Pausing there for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
Not a full review, but I think the critical reception needs work. See WP:RECEPTION; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hrabri-class submarine
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
HF
Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Specify in the infobox that the length figure is overall (o/a)
- "but regulations restricted them to a maximum depth of 55 m (180 ft)" - is this internal regulations or one of those post-WWI international navy regulations
- "En route one of the boats suffered from engine trouble" - Hvar or one of the submarines?
I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks HF! All done I reckon. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- "Their maximum diving depth was restricted to 55 metres (180 ft) by regulations." Which/whose regulations? (Also in the main body.)
- I think this fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Hrabri was captured by the Italians at the surrender". Could we have a little elaboration on what "the surrender" was?
- expanded to "at time of the Yugoslav surrender in mid-April". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt." Any link? Ok, I see it red linked in the body.
- Definitely article-worthy, but there isn't one yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "they were deployed them around the world". ?
- Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link "aft" at first mention.
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- No link for Austro-Hungarian Navy?
- Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" and "10.5 kn (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)." Does 0.5 kn really equal 0.1 mph?
- No. Good grief, default rounding... single figure rounding takes it to 0.6 mph, which is far closer. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "during her sea trials ... During her trials ... during trials ... During the trials".
- Good point, reworded this bit, hopefully smoother now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The crews of all four vessels were commended for their good behaviour on the cruise." Optional: "on" → 'during'.
- Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "was captured there by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender. In the interim, the commanding officer of Sitnica had been willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece". The break in the chronological flow jars a little.
- Fair enough. Re-ordered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "the pending surrender". As with the lead, what is/was "the surrender "?
- Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "At 02:45 on 26 April, the group of vessels was met by a British warship and escorted towards Alexandria. At 12:20 on 27 April Nebojša's ..." Personally I don't like (or even understand) commas after dates, but you should be consistent.
- OK. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The apparently random sprinkling of commas around dates in some articles is well beyond my comprehension or understanding; but seeing "In January 1943 comma Nebojša was" starting a paragraph while the next one commences with "In August 1945 no comma Nebojša was" does nothing to convince me that whatever convention is being followed is even internally consistent. The good news is, that as I don't understand it, or am even convinced that it is understandable, I am not going to let it get in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- Looks like this is missing one review, will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Belgrade is duplinked under Legacy.
- Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- No more images of these ships, or other relevant images to spice up the article a bit? Relevant places, people, or events?
- Not of the boats themselves, unfortunately, although I have a 2021 book with a dozen or so, in each case it was the first publication I'm aware of. I've added a pic of a gyrocompass, the original AA gun, the tower Nebojša was (partly) named after, and a map of Nebojša's escape. Thanks for the suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Done so far, FunkMonk. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Anna Wilson (basketball)
- Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Anna Wilson, the sister of NFL quarterback Russell Wilson and the woman who holds the Stanford Cardinal record for most career games played, with 160. She won the 2021 NCAA tournament with the Cardinal, and was in the final four in 2022 until losing to Uconn. I believe this is ready for FA status. I don't believe she is pursuing WNBA but she is keeping her options open. If anything changes I'll be sure to update the article. Now that her college career is over, I think the article is stable enough to be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
Please bear in mind I know almost nothing about basketball, although I did attend a game once while on holiday in New York........
- "Wilson played as a senior, Wilson averaged" - could probably change one of the two Wilsons to "she"
- Agreed, changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Wilson played primarily a bench role" - what's a "bench role"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
- Linked Substitution (sport). Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "year, where she started" - a year isn't a place, so I don't think "where" is the right conjunction to use here
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Her father played football" - presumably what he played was American football rather than
real footballsoccer......? ;-)- Clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "By age five, Anna played basketball" - wikilink basketball (as far as I can see it isn't actually linked anywhere in the article......
- Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "As a high school sophomore" - what is a "sophomore"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
- Linked. another US-ism. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year" - what is a "freshman year"?
- Linked. another US-ism. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year due to health issues: Wilson missed the first eleven games of her freshman year" - could change the second Wilson to "she" and lose the second "freshman year" as it's obvious you are still talking about that year
- Agreed, changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "In her junior year" - what's a "junior year"?
- Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "As a senior" - what's a "senior" in this context?
- Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "As a fifth-year senior" - what's a "fifth-year senior"? Presumably someone in their fifth year at university?
- Yes, I linked senior above. It's based on the four-year system in US colleges so freshman, sophomore, Junior (education year), and Senior (education). Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "who played college football as a wide receiver, and college baseball" - could lose the "as a wide receiver" as extraneous detail given that it isn't his article (it would help the sentence flow a bit better as well)
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
That's what I got. A good read although I got lost trying to figure out some terminology which would probably be really clear to someone from the United States but isn't to someone from the other side of the pond....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Am looking into how to do this with Template:Infobox basketball biography. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This can be done by adding this parameter to the infobox: | alt = Sportzeditz (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Added with the alt parameter, though I didn't see it at the infobox for Template:Infobox basketball biography. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment from a reader: I've now added references to the alt parameter in that template's documentation. (This is also one of many infoboxes that doesn't expose an upright scaling factor from InfoboxImage but probably should...) 25 pages had already found it. That template has a surprising number of unsupported parameter pages, too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Added with the alt parameter, though I didn't see it at the infobox for Template:Infobox basketball biography. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This can be done by adding this parameter to the infobox: | alt = Sportzeditz (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Am looking into how to do this with Template:Infobox basketball biography. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Sportzeditz
- "American college basketball player" → "American former college basketball player"
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "At the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship for Women, Wilson won a gold medal as a part of Team USA" - link Team USA to United States women's national under-17 basketball team and make this a separate sentence.
- Done. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- McDonald's All-American selection and state championship, as well as Pac-12 Co-Defensive Player of the Year award, may be worth including in the lead. High school statistics can be removed from lead.
- Added and removed high school statistics. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rename "Early life" section to "Early life and high school career".
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship information can be moved to a separate "National team career" section following "College career", if there is enough info. Participation in 2013 USA Basketball Women's U16 National Team Trials could be added here as well.
- I'm not sure there's enough for an entire section but I did add that she participated in U16 trials. I also added some from her time at Collegiate. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- To improve comprehensiveness, add more information from this article about early life and early high school career. Wilson's relationship with her late father is also notable to include in this section.
- Added first article. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will add the second soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added a line from the second article but I couldn't find specifics on her relationship with her father. I remember reading about it somewhere. I'll be sure to add a line on it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added a line on her father's death. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added a line from the second article but I couldn't find specifics on her relationship with her father. I remember reading about it somewhere. I'll be sure to add a line on it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will add the second soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added first article. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson entered the 2022 WNBA draft and was undrafted, which should be included in the body and infobox.
- Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- In personal life: add information about undergraduate and master's degrees, as described here. Sportzeditz (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sportzeditz: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Sportzeditz (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
I don't know much about college basketball, so just some prose comments:
- Should there not be a link to the disambiguation page to allow the user to get to other Anna Wilsons?
- I do not believe so, per WP:NAMB. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson and the team finished with an undefeated season --> the way I read this is that the team ceased to exist, is that what happened?
- No, clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- should her position not be in the lead?
- Added prominately. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- as a part of Team USA at the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship for Women as the United States defeated Spain --> not the most elegant of sentences. Perhaps a rephrase such that we do not have USA and United States
- To be honest it should be obvious she was a part of Team USA, so I've cut that part. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- missed her only field goal attempted --> missed her only attempt at a field goal?
- Yes. I believe this is clear from the wording. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- which comprises many of the top-ranked American and Canadian high school basketball graduates played the same day as a counterpart boys' game --> bit difficult to parse, perhaps insert "and is" before played? And perhaps the sentence should be in past tense?
- Added "and was." Changed to past tense. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- suffered a concussion in practice --> did she play at all? (Hopefully not)
- Did not play, added with citation. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson only played in six games her freshman year --> insert "during"?
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the first sentence of College career should mention and link to Stanford Cardinal
- Mentioned, linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- 35 games --> inconsistency with the numbers: earlier we have thirty-two games played. See MOS:NUM
- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see other players have a Career statistics section: Steve_Nash and Haley Jones for example. Should there not be one here?
- I will be looking into how to add this. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now added. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will be looking into how to add this. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That's all from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: comments responded to, thanks for the review! Therapyisgood (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, all fine, except for the lead now has an unexplained acronym: "(fourth in NCAA history)". This should be spelled out and linked. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: done. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: done. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, all fine, except for the lead now has an unexplained acronym: "(fourth in NCAA history)". This should be spelled out and linked. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- It looks like you are generally using the work parameter instead of the publisher parameter in your citations. That's an acceptable way to do it, but if so you are missing the work parameter in [6], and you have publisher instead of work in [11], [21] and [22].
- Added for reference 6. All changed to work. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- What makes prospectsnation.com a reliable source?
- The archive copy of [32] doesn't seem to include the graphics. I can't tell exactly what you're citing from this page; are the graphics a necessary part of the citation?
- I'm just citing the score. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Sportsfan77777
I'll review the article. I was the one who reviewed it for GA status last year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Gurl.com
- Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Gurl_2011_logo.png: FUR is incomplete - since the article includes two non-free logos there needs to be strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alt text added in the infobox. Justification for the 2011 logo is added; please let me know if there is anything I need to fix. lullabying (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Prose review by Anarchyte
Lead
- female sexuality - link to Human female sexuality (also link first instance in #Zine).
- teen magazine - link to Teen magazine (also link first instance in #History).
- Unlike teen magazines in the 1990s - thoughts on Unlike the teen magazines of the 1990s? Just an idea. Alternatively, given the article has already established the 1990s, Unlike the teen magazines of the era/decade?
- unconventional approach to teen-related topics compared to mainstream media - "unconventional" implies a comparison with the mainstream media, no? Could consider cutting the second half.
- contributions from its audience - not sure what this means. What type of contributions? Perhaps provide an example.
- anti-pornography advocates - link to Opposition to pornography (also link first instance in #Critical reception).
History
- as the Internet lacked communities for girls in the 1990s - as the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s.
- as a property - as an asset or as property, or simply cut and leave was included in?
- As the article notes an "undisclosed amount" for the PriMedia sale, do you have the numbers for any of the other sales? Out of curiosity more than anything, but it might be useful to include, especially for the initial Delia's purchase.
Content
- the website allows contributions - change to the website allowed contributions. The site is defunct.
- One of Gurl.com's notable contributions was its comics section - Not sure "contributions" is the correct word. My first instinct was that this is supposed to say "section" or something like that.
- Try the Prom Dress Selector - this sounds consumerist to an onlooker. Maybe cut and only have the other two examples.
- It also had personality quizzes, with one well-documented personality quiz being - repetition of "personality quiz". It also had personality quizzes, with a well-documented one being.
- During Delia's acquisition - During Delia's ownership.
- Many users used Gurlpages to host zines, one example being about female sexuality - if the source allows, Many users used Gurlpages to host zines about a range of topics, including female sexuality.
- Consider moving and incorporating the final paragraph of #Zine into #Features. Registration is more of a feature than commentary on the zine portion of the site.
Will look over the rest later. Anarchyte (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added further comments. Anarchyte (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I modified according to your advice. Regarding "One of Gurl.com's notable contributions was its comics section", I changed it to "One of Gurl.com's notable contributions from its readers was its comics section" because I meant for it to discuss how comics were submitted by readers of the website and became a popular section. Regarding the line about zines, the sources state that Gurlpages were used to host zines but the only topic that was mentioned in detail was about female sexuality. lullabying (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Coordinator comment as this nomination has been open for almost a month and has yet to attract a general support, it is liable to be archived within the next couple days if considerable movement towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 18:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I'll try to get more comments on this. lullabying (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
- "as the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s": This is said in Wikipedia's voice, which means we would need good sourcing for it. It may well be true but I think the intention is to say that this was the opinion of the three women, so perhaps this should read "as they felt the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s" or something similar.
- 'The name of the website combined the "g" with the acronym "URL."' I'm not sure what we are trying to communicate with this sentence. The website name is a pun that refers to both "URL" and "girl"; I think you've phrased it this way because all readers will understand the "girl" but some might not know the "URL" acronym. I can't see the source you're using, but if it will support it I'd suggest phrasing it like this: 'The name of the website combined "girl" with the internet acronym [or just acronym] "URL".' The "G" at the start isn't the point.
- "Odes, Drill, and McDonald continued to work on the website with Delia's": The sources may not specify, but do we know if they were taken on as employees of Delia's, or if Gurl.com continued to exist as a corporate entity, as a subsidiary, with the three women continuing to work for it?
- "Gurl.com was included as property in Delia's online subsidiary, iTurf, in an attempt to launch an e-commerce market targeting Generation Y": what's the significance of "as property"? Was iTurf a subsidiary company that owned Gurl.com? Or was Gurl.com essentially a brand, rather than a company, that iTurf was given control of?
- "topics such as female sexuality, which was often overlooked in traditional media aimed at teenagers in the 1990s": This is sourced to The Cut, which I don't think is good enough to have this in Wikipedia's voice. As above I suggest either finding another source for "was often overlooked", or changing this to assign it as an opinion.
- "as the website was intended to be a counterpoint against aspirational fantasy": something can be a "counter against" or a "counterweight against", or a "counterpoint to", but I don't think it can be a "counterpoint against".
- "Content on the website was organized based on topics, with regular sections named": would this lose anything if it were shortened to "Content on the website was organized into topics such as"?
- I tried going back through archive.org to find old issues of the zine. Do your sources say how many issues there were? This, which is dated the some month as the acquisition by Delia's, implies there were only four issues, which is a bit of a surprise as the third was apparently up by January 1997 -- see here. (And any idea why they were hosted at NYU? Not important if the sources don't cover it; hosting was a bit Wild-West-ish back then.)
- I think the content section needs a few dates. For example, from checking a few archive.org pages, it appears the presentation as a zine lasted a year or two past the acquisition by Delia's but not much more than that. The site lasted twenty-two years, and changed dramatically in that time, but the Content section speaks about the zine topics, features, games, and comics without making it clear what time period these apply to. Gurlmail.com and Gurlpages.com are given a date range, which is what I'm looking for. The sources may not let you be very specific, but we should convey whatever we can. Unfortunately digging through archive.org would be primary research so we can't do that.
- "While Gurl.com could be accessed without an account, registration was required in order to submit content and participate in the chat room and message board, enforced in order to protect its community": The last clause is a bit disconnected from the rest of the sentence. And if the source permits, can we be less vague than "protect"? E.g. from harassment, trolls, online predators?
- 'Early game content satirized beauty standards, such as "Hairy Gurl."' Is "Hairy Gurl" a game, or a character/game content? And as written this says that all the early games satirized beauty standards; is that really the case?
- "some critics advised the book should be read by older audiences": surely what they meant is that it was not suitable for younger readers, or that it should not be read by younger readers, not that it should be read by older readers?
- The critical reception section suffers from the A said B problem and needs to be reorganized for a more narrative flow.
- "In 2005, scholar Sharon Mazzarella noted that Gurl.com was among the websites that helped girls be creative and empowered, though it was later overshadowed by moral panic surrounding their vulnerability online": what was overshadowed? As written it says that Gurl.com was overshadowed, but I think Mazzarella is probably saying something more general about how websites that encourage girls to interact online were affected by the moral panic, and not talking only about Gurl.com.
- "creating a paradox on constructed norms and downplaying individual sexual agency": I think this is a little too academic in its phrasing.
- "It was named as one of the websites associated with the growth of websites owned by teenage girls, creating a potential advertising market worth $150 billion USD in 2000": I don't follow this. It was never owned by teenage girls, was it?
- "Duncan and Leander discovered that Gurl.com created spaces of both "resistance and conformity", as people who had websites on Gurlpages both expressed themselves in creative writing yet also listed personal information identifying their demographics and consumer habits": I think "discovered" is the wrong verb; it makes it sound as if their analysis is undoubtedly correct. Suggest rephrasing to use a verb like "described" or "considered".
That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Late Registration
- Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Resolved comments from Wehwalt
|
---|
|
Comments from ErnestKrause
Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- ErnestKrause Thanks a lot, I am very proud to have received your support! --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Media review from Elias.
Full media review. All issues have been resolved - passed. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
Support from 100cellsman
Resolved comments from 100cellsman
|
---|
Hi! The only thing I could find from looking through the article is the word "brainstorming" in the Recording section. I can't think of a replacement word at the moment but regardless I won't deduct any points. 웃OO 02:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|
Source review
I'll post more tomorrow, but I have an initial question: what's the logic behind when you use the publisher= parameter in {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite magazine}}? Any reasonable rule is fine but it needs to be consistently applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie My usage of publisher has to do with whether the sources are italicised or not. As for the actual cites, I have used news for any article that is labelled as such and magazine generally for any sources that are those, but I could go through to make sure I always use the mag template when it is appropriate if you wish? --K. Peake 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not what I meant to ask. The FAC requirement is consistency, so in a source review I look to see if you are consistent about how you decide to include the publisher and website. In [11] (referring to this version) you have a publisher and no website name; in [28] you have the reverse -- magazine (which is just an alias for the website parameter) but no publisher parameter. As you say, the publisher is not italicized, but the magazine/website/work/newspaper parameter is italicized, so the format of the resulting cites differs and is inconsistent unless you have a rule you're applying that I'm not seeing. For example, some editors always include the work parameter, and only include the publisher parameter where it's not obvious from the work -- so CNN would not get a publisher parameter because the website is CNN so the publisher is obvious, but a cite to Billboard would get both, since the publisher is Nielsen Business Media, Inc. My question is, how are you deciding which way to enter these cites -- when to use publisher, when to use work, and when to use both? It doesn't matter what the rule is so long as you're consistent about applying it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie Basically, I am looking at whether the source being cited is italicised or not to decide if I use publisher or a parameter that italicises. Regarding those examples, CNN is not so I used publisher but Billboard is and having publishers for online sources already citing website or a similar parameter would be excess process, also the consistency is in how I decided to use the parameters. --K. Peake 08:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that sounds reasonable. I'll review on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding, also I only use both at once for book sources because it would be too cluttered doing this for online pieces. K. Peake 09:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that sounds reasonable. I'll review on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie Basically, I am looking at whether the source being cited is italicised or not to decide if I use publisher or a parameter that italicises. Regarding those examples, CNN is not so I used publisher but Billboard is and having publishers for online sources already citing website or a similar parameter would be excess process, also the consistency is in how I decided to use the parameters. --K. Peake 08:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not what I meant to ask. The FAC requirement is consistency, so in a source review I look to see if you are consistent about how you decide to include the publisher and website. In [11] (referring to this version) you have a publisher and no website name; in [28] you have the reverse -- magazine (which is just an alias for the website parameter) but no publisher parameter. As you say, the publisher is not italicized, but the magazine/website/work/newspaper parameter is italicized, so the format of the resulting cites differs and is inconsistent unless you have a rule you're applying that I'm not seeing. For example, some editors always include the work parameter, and only include the publisher parameter where it's not obvious from the work -- so CNN would not get a publisher parameter because the website is CNN so the publisher is obvious, but a cite to Billboard would get both, since the publisher is Nielsen Business Media, Inc. My question is, how are you deciding which way to enter these cites -- when to use publisher, when to use work, and when to use both? It doesn't matter what the rule is so long as you're consistent about applying it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'll restate what I understand your policy on use of the publisher and work parameters, to make sure I understand it, since I'm going to cite what I think are inconsistencies with it: if a source is usually italicized (e.g. Rolling Stone) it will be given the work parameter and no publisher; if it is not usually italicized it will be given the publisher parameter and no work parameter. Here are a couple of cites that don't comply with that.
[166] includes both publisher and work.- Removed the publisher for consistency with Billboard citations. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Dazed and Vibe don't seem to typically italicize their names, but you have them cited with work, not publisher -- [47], [80].- Look at the Dazed and Vibe articles to see that you are clearly incorrect here. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- They describe themselves as magazines, so I've struck this since Wikipedia's convention is to italicize magazine titles, but the sites themselves don't appear to use italics. See here -- "Today, Dazed magazine continues to..." and here -- ""VIBE is a leading entertainment and lifestyle brand...". So I'll take it that even if a source doesn't use italics, if the Wikipedia convention is to use italics then you're using work and not publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the Dazed and Vibe articles to see that you are clearly incorrect here. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
[97] gives "MTV Hive" as the publisher, but that's the name of the website; the publisher is MTV.- This is not correct; the url is mtvhive.com and MTV Hive is not italicised either, unless you want me to cite one as publisher and the other as via? --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the corporate entity publishing the site was MTV, not MTV Hive. MTV Hive is not a publisher; it's the name of the website. As you say "MTV Hive" isn't italicized, so your rule would mean you put the publisher in. You could just make the publisher MTV, which wouldn't make it clear to the reader that this is MTV Hive we're sourcing from; that would work but isn't ideal. Or you could change your rule to allow use of the website parameter instead of publisher where that provides the reader more information -- here that italicizes MTV Hive, which is not italicized by the source, but that's OK -- it's just a citation formatting convention and happens all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed the publisher to simply MTV now and I'm glad you understand my point about the other publications. --K. Peake 06:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the corporate entity publishing the site was MTV, not MTV Hive. MTV Hive is not a publisher; it's the name of the website. As you say "MTV Hive" isn't italicized, so your rule would mean you put the publisher in. You could just make the publisher MTV, which wouldn't make it clear to the reader that this is MTV Hive we're sourcing from; that would work but isn't ideal. Or you could change your rule to allow use of the website parameter instead of publisher where that provides the reader more information -- here that italicizes MTV Hive, which is not italicized by the source, but that's OK -- it's just a citation formatting convention and happens all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is not correct; the url is mtvhive.com and MTV Hive is not italicised either, unless you want me to cite one as publisher and the other as via? --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll pause there to make sure I haven't misunderstood. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think we're on the same page now as to how you're using the cite parameters, so I'll continue with a more thorough review -- probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- {{Cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}} format differently, so I would suggest looking through your uses of {{cite journal}} to see if any of them would be better as {{cite magazine}}. For example, Spin magazine ([35]) is more of a magazine than an academic journal. If there's some rule you're using to choose journal vs. magazine, let me know what it is.
- I have changed the citations to format as cite journal only when it is suitable, which I think is for only citations using the via parameter since that is using a source like Google Books to cite an actual journal. I kept it for the Spin one though, as this is citing a journalistic piece on Google Books. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but then presumably [112] should not be cite journal, since it has no via parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed the citations to format as cite journal only when it is suitable, which I think is for only citations using the via parameter since that is using a source like Google Books to cite an actual journal. I kept it for the Spin one though, as this is citing a journalistic piece on Google Books. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Also compare formatting of [103] with [35] and [40].- Moved Spin in that ref. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have five citations for Spin; here are two.
- Caramanica, Jon (September 2005). "The Man Who Would Be King". Spin. 21 (9): 99–100. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015 – via Google Books.
- McGovern, Kyle; Jenkins, Craig (October 27, 2014). "All 289 Eminem Songs, Ranked". Spin. Archived from the original on April 3, 2015. Retrieved March 10, 2022.
- What I'm saying is that the Caramanica cite should look like the McGovern/Jenkins cite. I understand that you are using the presence of via as your way to choose journal vs. magazine, but that leads to this inconsistency in presentation. I haven't run into someone using this exact style before; I think this runs afoul of WP:FACR 2(c), which requires consistent formatting, but if you disagree we can ping in Nikkimaria or another experienced source reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- To achieve consistency, I have removed parameters from this ref and changed it to cite magazine instead. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have five citations for Spin; here are two.
- Moved Spin in that ref. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- When are you using the issue parameter? As far as I can tell your intention is to use it for journals and not magazines; if so I would remove it from [129]. The other journal citations without it could add it, but you may also want to change those to magazine citations per my comment above.
- Removed. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but if you're going to keep the cite journal citations above, you would need to add the issue parameter to those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this really needed for every journal parameter? --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I had a look at the ones that don't have it and I think it's probably OK. The formatting looks different but those publications probably don't track issue and volume as the academic journals do. I'll ping Nikki about it below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this really needed for every journal parameter? --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but if you're going to keep the cite journal citations above, you would need to add the issue parameter to those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
[58] uses the domain name; should be "Amazon", or "Amazon UK" if you prefer.
- Altered. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
[57] & [70] both cite Beaumont's God & Monster, which is also listed in Further reading. I see you're citing specific chapters, which is presumably why you're not using an sfn link to the bibliography, but I don't think you need the full bibliographic description in both the citation and the Further reading section. I would suggest removing it from Further reading, or you could cut the chapters and use sfn, and list it in the bibliography.- Done, removing from further reading. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- [52], [118], & [129] have the location parameter, but no other cites do.
- Unless I missed something, these are the only sources that list a location. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Per this Worldcat record, for example, Colossus Books is located in Phoenix, and looking through the web citations I recognize many of them as having citable locations -- the Los Angeles Times and Washington City Paper, for example. It's rare to use locations in web cites because they can be a pain to figure out, and for web sources it's not a particularly helpful datum, so you might consider just eliminating the location from web cites and news cites. It should be consistent for books -- either included or excluded is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, my point is that I have only listed locations when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Per this Worldcat record, for example, Colossus Books is located in Phoenix, and looking through the web citations I recognize many of them as having citable locations -- the Los Angeles Times and Washington City Paper, for example. It's rare to use locations in web cites because they can be a pain to figure out, and for web sources it's not a particularly helpful datum, so you might consider just eliminating the location from web cites and news cites. It should be consistent for books -- either included or excluded is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, these are the only sources that list a location. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Compare formatting of [146] with other Billboard cites. In fact, checking the wikitext, it seems you're using the {{Webarchive}} template for a lot of these; that generates output that is inconsistent with the other style. How do you want to resolve this?
- I have fixed the formatting, but the webarchive template had been added by other users before I edited this; should I replace these instances or keep them? --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that they say "at the Wayback Machine" isn't an issue; it's the sequence of elements of the cite that is inconsistent, and looking at this again I think it should be easy to fix. Compare [107] to [109]: both are citations to Village Voice articles without authors, so should be identically laid out. The first is "title - archive info - work - retrieval date"; the second is "title - work - archive info - retrieval date". The work is not part of the webarchive template, so I think if you just go through and move the work title to before the webarchive template in each case you'll have a consistent format. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie I think I have formatted all of the wayback machine citations correctly now; please tell me if I missed any! --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those all look good now. Can you take a look at [194] though? Looks like there are two separate archive links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie I think I have formatted all of the wayback machine citations correctly now; please tell me if I missed any! --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that they say "at the Wayback Machine" isn't an issue; it's the sequence of elements of the cite that is inconsistent, and looking at this again I think it should be easy to fix. Compare [107] to [109]: both are citations to Village Voice articles without authors, so should be identically laid out. The first is "title - archive info - work - retrieval date"; the second is "title - work - archive info - retrieval date". The work is not part of the webarchive template, so I think if you just go through and move the work title to before the webarchive template in each case you'll have a consistent format. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed the formatting, but the webarchive template had been added by other users before I edited this; should I replace these instances or keep them? --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Will look at reliability and links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've struck a couple of points above; there are several threads left so rather than try to keep them going here's a relisting of them. Nikki, I'd appreciate your take on the second and third points below.
[194] has two separate archive links.
- I have fixed this now. --K. Peake 18:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are listing locations "only when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication". I haven't run into this approach before; you have three citations with location parameters, two for cite web and one for cite journal. I would have thought this fails the consistency requirement, but I'll defer to Nikki.
- Basically, I mean when the source itself lists a location as well as an author. --K. Peake 18:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow - you're not including it for something like NYT which lists a location. Do you mean in the byline? That's not necessarily the publication location. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean like this when the specific citation, not the website as a whole, lists a location. --K. Peake 06:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that when
|publication-place=
is not specified then|location=
is treated as publication place - that isn't correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria So are you saying that I should add publication-place, or simply remove location altogether? --K. Peake 05:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Either: location is optional, so just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed all instances of the location parameter to publication-place, how does this look now? K. Peake 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but these aren't actually publication places, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed all instances of the location parameter to publication-place, how does this look now? K. Peake 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this? --K. Peake 06:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Either: location is optional, so just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that when
Pinging Nikki to make sure I have this right. Kyle, I think the issue is that per the documentation at Template:Cite web, place/location is used for datelined news stories, and publication-place is for the geographic place where the publisher produces their publication. In the link you provide above, Barcelona is the datelined location, which means it should get used for |place=
, for which "location" is an alias. When used in that way the result is "Written at Barcelona" before the title. However, if you use place/location and you don't also use |publication-place=
, then the place/location parameter is treated as the publication place. The result is that your citation linked above is showing Barcelona as the geographic location of the publisher, but in fact it's the dateline location of the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. You can either have no location at all, or you can add publication place to the dateline place - you cannot just use dateline place as publication place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have tried using the place parameter, however this still displays any city directly after the publisher with no written by or similar text, so I have decided to do away with locations altogether. K. Peake 13:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that addresses the last formatting issue. I will look at links and reliability shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have tried using the place parameter, however this still displays any city directly after the publisher with no written by or similar text, so I have decided to do away with locations altogether. K. Peake 13:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Re adding issue for the cite journals; I can see the issue number might not be available for non-academic sources such as Radio & Records, so the difference in formatting might be unavoidable, once you've decided to use cite journal rather than cite magazine. Nikki, can you comment here as well? K. Peake is using cite journal when there's a "via" parameter, and cite magazine when there is not, so there are non-academic magazines using cite journal, which means in turn the formatting looks a bit different because there might be no issue number available. Is this OK?
- If a piece of metadata isn't provided because it simply doesn't exist in certain cases, that's fine - you can't include what isn't there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's everything left over from above. Still have to look at reliability and links, which I'll do once these points are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Links and reliability:
- Not a reason to fail the source review, but I don't see the point of archive links such as this.
- The tool automatically archives all references which led to this, so is there any point in going through just to remove archives? --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't bother. I wish the tools didn't do that but it's harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The tool automatically archives all references which led to this, so is there any point in going through just to remove archives? --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
[158], [185], & [186] are not working and have no archive link.- You might want to re-check, as I opened these OCC citations after you posted this and they loaded perfectly fine to show the chart position for the album on each one. --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- They all work for me now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to re-check, as I opened these OCC citations after you posted this and they loaded perfectly fine to show the chart position for the album on each one. --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- What makes swisscharts.com/hitparade.ch/Hung Medien a reliable source? Per de:Hitparade.ch it's the work of a single person; if it's now a corporate entity with editorial control, that's fine, but I couldn't find evidence of that.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CHARTS lists it as acceptable and this is the go-to guideline for charts, also how many editors does not matter when it is for a company that reports charts. --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take another look and post here again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OCC is fine; not sure why I couldn't find the pages describing their ownership before but they're reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie I was defending swisscharts.com not OCC with my comments but good thing you recognized the reliability of that source anyway, also has the source review fully passed now or just a section? --K. Peake 13:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OCC is fine; not sure why I couldn't find the pages describing their ownership before but they're reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take another look and post here again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Damn. Sorry, Kyle, I checked the wrong thing; I did mean this as a pass for the whole source review, but got crossed up when checking the source. I'll take another look now. I've struck the pass but I hope to unstrike it shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- A look in the archives at RS doesn't find anything helpful. I looked through the old archives at WT:CHARTS and found this which says they are licensed to provide these charts, but I can't find anything that shows that. A search in Google Books for discussions of them being cited by other reliable sources (which would help establish their reliability) is rather discouraging as it only shows Wikipedia articles repackaged as books. I also can't find anything about them in news reports. If you can find old discussions that establish their reliability, or find a link that shows they have some form of licensing to do what they do, or find evidence that they have a corporate structure and exercise editorial control over the charts, or show that external reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, or reliable music sources) treat them as reliable, that would help. I understand that they're well-established as reliable by the relevant Wikiprojects, but I have to see the evidence myself to pass the source review. I will keep looking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie Looking at WP:CHARTS where Hung Medien is listed, you can see that the guideline page clearly has its standards set out for reliability of charts. If this is not sufficient, then see archive 16 where a discussion about how reliable swisscharts.com is came up and remember, it is controlled on IFPI Switzerland's behalf. --K. Peake 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've started a thread at WT:CHARTS to try to settle this and have also mentioned it on WT:FAC to try to get other music editors to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie Looking at WP:CHARTS where Hung Medien is listed, you can see that the guideline page clearly has its standards set out for reliability of charts. If this is not sufficient, then see archive 16 where a discussion about how reliable swisscharts.com is came up and remember, it is controlled on IFPI Switzerland's behalf. --K. Peake 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
SUPPORT(!) from Teflon Peter Christ
Resolved comments from Teflon Peter Christ
|
---|
I would SERIOUSLY reconsider relocating the content about West's Katrina-Bush-blackpeople remarks. It is BOTH out of place in the section it's currently in and faaar more connected to the Legacy paragraph(s). Otherwise, I fall in line with the other supports here! 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
|
Support from TheAmazingPeanuts
Reviewing articles is not my thing at all, but I think the article is well written and everything seems to be sourced correctly. This nomination have my support. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Speak Now
- Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review - pass
- File:Taylor Swift - Speak Now cover.png: Has appropriate fair use rationale
- File:Taylor Swift 2009 MTV VMA.jpg, File:SXSW 2009 Kanye West (3378197438).jpg: Flickr CC images
- File:Taylor Swift - Speak Now World Tour Sydney 2012.jpg: Wikimedian-created. In Australia, so no issues.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The Target edition was released to other retailers on January 17, 2012." seems like orginal research to me because the sources provided can't show the action
- Why are these sources high quality reliable sources
--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: Hello, thank you for the source review. The Barnes & Noble sources do say that the deluxe edition was released on January 17, 2012, so please verify again (there's an archive-url). For the Musicradar and Songwriteruniverse sources, I believe they are eligible to be used as WP:ABOUTSELF because they essentially are interviews. The indies.ca website is the official site of the Canadian Independent Music Awards. Ippantekina (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems fair. I will leave the two interviews for other reviewers to judge. My objections are withdrawn -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by MusicforthePeople
A decent if a bit long album for my liking. Some thoughts I have:
- The genres are listed in a different order in the lead (country pop/power pop/pop rock) versus the infobox (country pop/pop rock/power pop). This suggestion might be more on the trivial side, but uniformity never hurts.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Six singles supported the album" - I would have said "Six singles were used to promote the album".
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any reason why "Mean" is introduced in the 3rd lead paragraph, instead of the 2nd with the rest of the singles?
- In the 2nd para I mentioned singles with notable chart stats and leave out other singles that kind of 'underperformed' compared to the rest. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gotcha. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, no mention of "The Story of Us"?
- Ditto. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the Background section, link Nashville
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link "interrupted her acceptance speech" to the relevant section at the 2009 MTV Awards article.
- Linked to Kanyegate. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delink Kanye West in the Writing and lyrics section as he's already mentioned in the previous section. Just the prose mention, keep the picture caption link.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "In 'Innocent', Swift sings about ..." change this to "In the song" or "In the track" since its named in the previous line.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Pain in the Art Studio, Nashville" change this to "Pain in the Art Studio in Nashville".
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unlink Nashville in Production section since its introduced in Background (and should be linked there per my earlier suggestion).
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link SM57 to SM57
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Blackbird Studios, Nashville" change this to "Blackbird Studios in Nashville".
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link 1950s to 1950s
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Like above for 1960s to 1960s
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Link girl-group to girl group
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd summarise the support acts for the world tour, something like "Various acts opened the Asian and European legs, while Needtobreathe opened the North American shows and Hot Chelle Rae did the same for the Oceanic shows".
- I would leave out information on supporting acts for the tour article.. Ippantekina (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delink Billboard 200 in the Commercial performance section as its already linked in the Background section.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The four full mentions of United States in the Commercial performance section should be shortened to US like the previous sections.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That's all I have; feel free to ignore any you think is unnecessary. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
My concerns from last time have been resolved. I have the following suggestions this time.
- The second para in the lead uses number one quite often; can we rephrase one ("peaked atop"/"topped the [chart]"...)?
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "some media criticized Swift's weak live vocals" - it sounds as though Swift's "weak" live vocals were a fact. It should be instead "some media criticized Swift's live vocals as weak" or "some media felt Swift's live vocals were weak".
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- ""Haunted" is about romantic obsession and "Last Kiss" is about" - is about.. is about.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Swift recorded much of Speak Now with producer Nathan Chapman" - don't think we need to repeat Champan's role ("producer") here since it was just mentioned in the previous para.
- Done. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I have read till the end of Music section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I have made changes here to eliminate prose redundancy, make small copy-edits and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Please check these carefully and let me know if I messed something up. Other than these and the comment below, the article is pretty much good to go in my opinion, but this should not affect my support.
- "She also gave private concerts to contest winners" - which contest are we talking about here? FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. The NYC source simply says "gave a private performance for contest winners that was broadcast online" so I guess it was some sort of fan-contest? (I can remove it if it is too vague) I clarified that she performed for JetBlue at Kennedy Airport. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
A.C. Monza
After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
- Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
For the new image added, File:Stadio Sada 1970.JPG, I checked the source and I'm not seeing how we can confirm the image was taken in 1970. Also, it needs to be published before 1989 for URAA to apply. Otherwise it follows the US rules for unpublished works (70 years from the author's death, if known, else the shorter of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation). (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I replaced it with File:Stadio Gino Alfonso Sada (Monza).jpg. Nehme1499 17:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
Nearly three weeks in and this has yet to attract a general support. Unless this nomination attracts considerable further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: It's a bit disheartening to see a FAC failed due to inactivity. What do you suggest me to do next time I nominate this article for FA? Nehme1499 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be. Maybe ask some of the regular sports and/or general reviewers in advance for any informal comments and if they would consider reviewing it. Possibly do this formally via peer review. Sometimes an article doesn't get reviewed because potential reviewers think it is likely not up to scratch and wish to avoid the acrimony of having to say this. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, but PR may help address such issues if they do exist. Doing some reviewing yourself will help. One, you'll get a better idea of the sort of things needed by actually getting into the nuts and bolts of assessing them in a dozen or so articles; two, if potential reviewers have seen your name cropping up at FAC helping out with other articles they are more likely to be disposed to select one of your nominations the next time they are wondering what to review. Lastly, don't be afraid to ask; even now a polite, friendly, neutrally phrased message on the talk pages of half a dozen football article nominators/reviewers may save this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated! I've just contacted a few users who have recently reviewed football-related FACs. In case it doesn't work out, I'll go for a peer review. Nehme1499 21:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be. Maybe ask some of the regular sports and/or general reviewers in advance for any informal comments and if they would consider reviewing it. Possibly do this formally via peer review. Sometimes an article doesn't get reviewed because potential reviewers think it is likely not up to scratch and wish to avoid the acrimony of having to say this. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, but PR may help address such issues if they do exist. Doing some reviewing yourself will help. One, you'll get a better idea of the sort of things needed by actually getting into the nuts and bolts of assessing them in a dozen or so articles; two, if potential reviewers have seen your name cropping up at FAC helping out with other articles they are more likely to be disposed to select one of your nominations the next time they are wondering what to review. Lastly, don't be afraid to ask; even now a polite, friendly, neutrally phrased message on the talk pages of half a dozen football article nominators/reviewers may save this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
I will have a look in the next day or so. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay but here are my comments:
- Between the 2000s and 2010s, they faced financial issues and were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015 --> Can we make this simpler and just say "In the 21st century, they .."
- The 21st century spans 100 years; the issues lasted only for the first 15-ish years.
- OK, but I don't think I understand what between the 2000s and 2010s means. I have never seen this construction. Simplest is if you just give the years. Or add "around" if it is not exact.
- Between the 2000s and 2010s means between 2000 and 2019 (more or less). In reality, I can't really give a precise date for when the financial issues began or ended. It's more or less between [after 1999/2000] and [around 2015]. Is there no better way to say "circa during the first two decades of the 21st century"?
- I find temporal references always tricky, but I would say "At times during the first two decades of the 21st century, they faced financial issues; they were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015."
- Thanks, done.
- I find temporal references always tricky, but I would say "At times during the first two decades of the 21st century, they faced financial issues; they were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015."
- Between the 2000s and 2010s means between 2000 and 2019 (more or less). In reality, I can't really give a precise date for when the financial issues began or ended. It's more or less between [after 1999/2000] and [around 2015]. Is there no better way to say "circa during the first two decades of the 21st century"?
- OK, but I don't think I understand what between the 2000s and 2010s means. I have never seen this construction. Simplest is if you just give the years. Or add "around" if it is not exact.
- The 21st century spans 100 years; the issues lasted only for the first 15-ish years.
- Monza F.B.C. was founded --> should the acronym F.B.C. not be explained?
- Done
- to form A.C. Monza --> I would give the full name here
- Done
- when conscription forced teams to field their overage players --> I'm confused: what does overage mean?
The age at which you were forced to go to war. Not sure what it is (it's not explicitly mentioned in the source).- I've clarified it as
when conscription forced teams to send their overage players to war
. "Overage" is a translation of the Italian "maggiorenne", which is the opposite of "underage". Should I just use "adult"?- I have never seen overage. Adult is unambiguous.
- Done.
- I have never seen overage. Adult is unambiguous.
- The 2006–07 season was even more dramatic: in the first leg at home, --> is this in the play-offs again?
- Yes, it's prefaced by "losing two consecutive play-off finals" before.
- with high-end players with Serie A experience --> a few examples would be useful
- I don't this it's that useful: I feel we'd be giving undue weight to these players. They were certainly "superstars" for the division (third) they were playing in, but not huge international names. I'd probably add examples for the upcoming 2022–23 Serie A season (once I add the paragraph next year), as Monza purchased a few Italy international players.
- In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes. --> this does not seem to be mentioned in the running text. I don't think the illustrations align well with the text. "In 1971, Monza's kit underwent a slight but significant change: a vertical white band was added on the left-hand side" added to what? A red shirt I assume, but the text doesn't mention that.
- I specified that the kit was red in 1971. I'm not sure what to do with the 1938/1962 striped kit.
- Sorry, but I still don't get the shirts. 1) The text does not seem to mention the multi-stripe shirt from illustration 4. 2) The text "Monza's home kit has been red and its away kit white ever since" seems to refer to the colour scheme overall, but when it says "added" it seems to mean that the whole shirt was red.
- Is it necessary to write in text that the multi-stripe shirt existed? It would literally be a copy-paste of the caption ("In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes"). It is sourced by the same book(s) used to source the rest of the section.
- I have never come across an FA where the caption introduces information not in the text. But I have not seen anything in MoS that says so, so I guess you could argue it does not break any rules. But it is just very odd, it breaks the storyline. A reader who has read the text and then looks at the illustrations, will get confused.
- The club colours became red (home) and white (away) from 1932 to present. Generally, the home kit was full-red, but sometimes there were variations from season to season (such as the striped shirt). The first major (semi-)permanent change came in 1971, where the thin lateral stripe was added. The stripe is white for the (red) home kit, and red for the (white) away kit.
- You should explain it like this in the text. The current text does not say this. In the current text, if I ignore the illustrations, it is not possible to understand what "was added" means.
- @Edwininlondon: I've added to the kit section. Let me know if this works. Nehme1499 08:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- You should explain it like this in the text. The current text does not say this. In the current text, if I ignore the illustrations, it is not possible to understand what "was added" means.
- Is it necessary to write in text that the multi-stripe shirt existed? It would literally be a copy-paste of the caption ("In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes"). It is sourced by the same book(s) used to source the rest of the section.
- Sorry, but I still don't get the shirts. 1) The text does not seem to mention the multi-stripe shirt from illustration 4. 2) The text "Monza's home kit has been red and its away kit white ever since" seems to refer to the colour scheme overall, but when it says "added" it seems to mean that the whole shirt was red.
- I specified that the kit was red in 1971. I'm not sure what to do with the 1938/1962 striped kit.
- why are the current away colours not mentioned here? Only in the infobox does not seem sufficient to me
They have always been white. I'm unsure how to phrase this.- Done
- Following Silvio Berlusconi's takeover --> Following Berlusconi's takeover
- Done
- the Italian sources need a trans-title
- Wouldn't this make the newspaper sources, which have quotes, excessively long?
- To be sure it's clear what I'm referring to: I'm talking about the ones in the sections Bibliography and Further reading
- Done.
- To be sure it's clear what I'm referring to: I'm talking about the ones in the sections Bibliography and Further reading
- Wouldn't this make the newspaper sources, which have quotes, excessively long?
That's it from me. Looks comprehensive. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: Thanks for the comments. I've answered everything above. Nehme1499 16:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: I've added further comments above. Nehme1499 23:47, 24 July 2022 (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
- Prose
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - do you still anticipate being able to do a review here? Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from ChrisTheDude
- No need to link Serie A twice in the lead
- Done
- "Monza F.B.C was" - missing dot after C
- Done
- "Monza's first recorded win came on 20 September 1912" - surely it would be better to mention their first ever match rather than their first win?
- I've consulted various contemporary newspapers and journals, as well as books on the club's history. I could not find anything other than their first win. Even the history section on the club's official website only lists the first win.
- "Monza first participated in the Terza Categoria (third level) in the 1913–14 season [it]; they played their first match on 4 January 1914" - the 1913-14 season didn't start till January......?
- It's nothing too out of the ordinary. The Terza Categoria was divided by region; maybe other regions started earlier? Anyway, this is what I've got from contemporary newspapers (and fact checked with books).
- "Monza were grouped with Milan, Cremonese and Pro Patria in their qualifying group" - qualifying for what?
- I've clarified that we're talking about the Prima Categoria.
- "The match between Monza and Verona on 8 October 1955, was " - no reason for that comma there
- Done
- "Monza again failed qualification in the final matches" => "Monza again missed out on promotion in the final matches"
- Done
- "Monza failed promotion to the top flight" => "Monza failed to gain promotion to the top flight"
- Done
- "Monza won a record-fourth Coppa Italia Serie C" => "Monza won a record fourth Coppa Italia Serie C"
- Done
- "Stadio Brianteo was dysfunctional" - don't think "dysfunctional" is really the right word here, but I can't suggest a better one as I don't know what you are trying to say. Can you expand a little?
- The stadium could not be used to host matches. The city of Monza cut the supply of gas and light towards the stadium following the club's financial problems.
- I would write all of that, it's clearer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done. Nehme1499 21:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would write all of that, it's clearer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The stadium could not be used to host matches. The city of Monza cut the supply of gas and light towards the stadium following the club's financial problems.
- "The new ownership didn't last long" => "The new ownership did not last long"
- Done
- "Monza registered to the Serie D (fourth level) on 31 July" - what do you mean by "registered"? Were they relegated to this division?
- On 23 and 30 May 2015, Monza played the Serie C relegation play-offs, which they won. Sports wise, they should have played in the Serie C in 2015–16. However, due to being bankrupt, the club was re founded as a phoenix club, and started back from the Serie D. This is standard procedure for bankrupt clubs in Italy; the Serie D is the first non-professional league in the country.
- "Having finished the first leg in second place" - first leg of what?
- Of the 2020–21 Serie B season; I thought it was self explanatory. Should I add "of the season" after "the first leg"?
- In 40 years of following football, I have never heard reference being made to the first and second "legs" of a season. I have only ever heard "legs" used in the context of two-legged ties. I would simply say "the first half of the season"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- My bad. In Italy we would say "andata" and "ritorno", which I didn't know how to translate. I've fixed it now.
- In 40 years of following football, I have never heard reference being made to the first and second "legs" of a season. I have only ever heard "legs" used in the context of two-legged ties. I would simply say "the first half of the season"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of the 2020–21 Serie B season; I thought it was self explanatory. Should I add "of the season" after "the first leg"?
- That's what I got as far as the end of the Colours section. I will try to look at the rest tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Small stands were fitted" => "Small stands were built"
- Done.
- "when World War II made it impracticable" => "when World War II made it impractical"
- Done.
- "with the founding of the ultras group" =>"with the founding of the ultras groups" (because you talk about two groups)
- Done.
- Out on loan table looks weird with two columns but no players in the second column
- The players are now two, so the table should be ok.
- That's what I got on the rest :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, appreciate it! I should have taken care of everything; there are a couple of things I clarified above. Nehme1499 23:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Cas Liber
Placeholder...bit of a traffic jam on this page now :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
Another placeholder Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, first comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The club ... they
- Not sure what I should change here. I'm using the collective "they" to refer to the club.
- link bankrupt
- Done
- Forti e Liberi — needs a footnote, no idea what this is
- It's a sports club based in Monza. Is it necessary to add a footnote to explain this?
- behind direct promotion — automatic promotion?
- Done
- they needed an away win to first-placed Varese— against is clearer
- Done
- In May 2016, the club changed its name to S.S. Monza 1912; the team achieved promotion back to the Serie C under coach Marco Zaffaroni in 2017.[112] — perhaps and instead of semicolon
- Done
- Corona Ferrea — give translation, iron crown
- The text already says "Corona Ferrea (Iron Crown)". Should I also give the translation in the image caption?
- newly annexed city of Fiume — say who it was annexed from, and perhaps a footnote saying it's Croatian again now
- I've added a footnote (Fiume (today known as Rijeka) was part of Italy until 1947, when it became part of Yugoslavia. The club is today known as HNK Rijeka.)
- The costs in lira are pretty meaningless now, especially outside Italy, perhaps current equivalents in euros?
- I've written the equivalent in Euro using an inflation converter (inflationhistory.com). Not entirely sure if this is the best way to show the conversion.
- @Jimfbleak: I've commented/taken care of all the comments above. Nehme1499 23:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- two follow-ups: Forti e Liberi I think needs a little clarification in the text or a footnote. With that name, I wondered if we were talking about sportsmen associated with a far-right orgainisation
- Thank you for the conversion to euros. I couldn't see a reference or footnote to the converter you have used; I might have missed it, but if not you will need to add one. Also, in the ref and the first example in the text you will need to say what year the euro convertions relate to. I assume 2021, but you don't say that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: I've added the following ref:
Historical conversion from Italian lira to Euro according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics online calculator (rivaluta.istat.it/Rivaluta/). Euro figures refer to June 2022
. I've tried to clarify the Forti e Liberi part, let me know if it's good. Nehme1499 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: I've added the following ref:
- Looks OK now, and the comments from other editors seem to be well in hand, so changed to Support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Kelenken
This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass Maybe I'm missing something but where does the source say that File:Feeding Kelenken.jpg is released under a CC license? Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included
- FN6 should include book editors
- Don't duplicate identifiers in
|url=
- FN11 is missing publisher
- FN18 is missing ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Query by WereSpielChequers
Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.
- Re:
"dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked. "These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed.ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated.ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Support by CMD
I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is
- Article: "...hunting in areas with tall vegetation, providing the agility needed to move amongst vertical obstacles, while the narrow upper maxilla permitted greater access to small prey animals hidden among tree trunks or stones"
- Source: "...hunted in regions with high vegetation, permitting their greater agility between verticle obstacles. A very narrow upper maxilla would furthermore facilitate the apprehension of small animals hidden amongst trunks or stones"
Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller
preyanimals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- Alright, took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller
- My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- "Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird", an extinct group of large, predatory birds)". Suggest 'Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird") an extinct group of large, predatory birds'.
- "The long and slender tarsometatarsus of Kelenken instead shows". "instead" of what?
- "and eat small animals". As we have just been told that it is a predator, "and eat" this add anything to the lead. Why else would it chase them down? And this is covered again in the next sentence. Similarly in the main article.
- "the most completely known skull of a large phorusrhacid known at the time." "known ... known". Any chance of some variation?
- "Previously, such skulls were known only from the fragmentary Devincenzia and Phorusrhacos, the latter of which disintegrated during collection (leaving only the tip of the beak), which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes, until the discovery of Kelenken." This doesn't really work as a single sentence. Suggest breaking after "Phorusrhacos".
- "the latter of which disintegrated". Delete "of which".
- "though their validity had not yet been confirmed through cladistic analysis". Perhaps 'had not then been ...'?
- "birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism". Anything in the sources which wuold allow you to suggest why.
- There is probably not a common cause for all of these groups, but as was the case with mammals, there were just a lot of niches left for large animals after the non-bird dinosaurs disappeared. I can't find a source related to these birds that states it explicitly, though, but it is implied later in the article where it is compared to meat-eating dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- "while there are records from Europe, these are disputed." This doesn't make sense to me. (Records of what? Do you mean remains? What is disputed? Obviously not that they are Phorusrhacids as you have just said there are records of them in Europe.) I realise that this is summary style, but any chance of unpacking it a little?
- "they may also have made reverse movements." Which would be what?
- "that invaded from North America in the Pleistocene." "invaded"! Really? Is there not a more neutral synonym?
- Changed to "entered", but "invasion" is commonly used in biology too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Invasive species etc. But without context it reads oddly to me.
- Changed to "entered", but "invasion" is commonly used in biology too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "very small wings". Actually, they weren't. The word 'relatively' needs to be worked in somewhere.
- "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid". Is it known how it ranks amongst post-dinosaur avians more generally?
- Only in the skull-size, since so little of the skeleton is known, the sources don't say anything about how it would compare to for example the elephant birds. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "437.14 mm (17.210 in)". This seems a ridiculous level of purported accuracy, given what is being measured. Suggest rounding to the nearest mm.
- "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid ... Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known". If you are going to repeat this, could the two statements appear next to each other? And why the switch in tense - "is" to ""was"?
- "3 m (9.8 ft)". Decimal feet?[!]
- "Such a strong downwards projection resembles most closely the condition seen in large to medium sized phorusrhacids such as Phorusrhacos, Patagornis, Andrewsornis, and Andalgalornis than the weaker projections of the smaller psilopterines." I think you are missing something like 'more' or 'rather' before "than".
- "though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines". Is there a reason for the havering "apparently"?
- Link process.
- "is almost quadrangular, which is different from that of brontornithines, which are rectangular". Are rectangles not a category of quadrangles? (Do you mean 'square?) Likewise with "The fourth trochlea is quadrangular, which contrasts with the rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia."
- Hmmm, good question, but that's how the source puts it: "a subquadrangular midshaft of the tarsometarsus (differing from the rectangular and very wide midshaft of brontornithines)" and "a quadrangular trochlea of metatarsal IV (contrasting with the proximodistally rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia pozzi)". Will try to ping Jens Lallensack, who should be better at interpreting anatomical terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I think we need to blame the source here! Apparently, with "quadrangular" they mean "irregularly quadrangular". Probably this term should be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm, good question, but that's how the source puts it: "a subquadrangular midshaft of the tarsometarsus (differing from the rectangular and very wide midshaft of brontornithines)" and "a quadrangular trochlea of metatarsal IV (contrasting with the proximodistally rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia pozzi)". Will try to ping Jens Lallensack, who should be better at interpreting anatomical terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly based on them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies". This construction does not work. It's the "rather than". Maybe something like 'Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks. These were not based on detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies ...'?
- Them having large skulls with hooked beak is the fact these hypotheses were based on, so "had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks" won't work, as that implies their large skulls and hooked beaks are hypothetical. Tried with the following, though it may also have issues: "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly inferred from them having large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses". FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "14 m s−1 ~50 km h−1". Should the conversion not be in parentheses? And the "-1" should be superscript.
- Cheetahs - is their speed known? Even if only in a foot note. Almost any reader is going to be looking it up.
- "This could be used for accessing the marrow inside the bones". What is "This"?
- "These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle, the skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”." → 'These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle. The skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”.'
- "a maximum downwards strike". What is being maximised? (I am guessing either extension or force.)
- "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor; the "Psilopterine Skull Type", which was plesiomorphic (more similar to the ancestral type), and the "Terror Bird Skull Type", which included Kelenken and other large members, that was more specialized, with more rigid and stiff skulls." That's a heck of a sentence. Perhaps break it up?
- "the earlier late Early ..." Anything you can do about this?
- Tried with "contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene". FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and instead allowed ..." Which of the two allowed this?
- Rephrased to "The open environment allowed more cursorial and large animals to occur, contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene, with its well-developed forests with tree-dwelling animals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for review, answered all points, though the quadrangular issue is not yet solved. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of comments above, but happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77
- Could you break up the sections into smaller subsections? Giant 1,500 word essays can look pretty daunting to read Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did to with paleobiology (added "Limb function" and "Skull and neck function" sections), but there isn't much of a natural cut-off point in the description, which apart from a short paragraph, is almost entirely about the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried with a skull and leg bone section under description, not sure if it works well. Wish they had described the known toe bone too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you could also cleave off Beak or Mouth or Jaws? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried with a skull and leg bone section under description, not sure if it works well. Wish they had described the known toe bone too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did to with paleobiology (added "Limb function" and "Skull and neck function" sections), but there isn't much of a natural cut-off point in the description, which apart from a short paragraph, is almost entirely about the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's better to say 5 ft 6 in than 5.5 ft or 66 in. Like, 17.210 inches is not as intelligible as 1 ft 5.28 in. You can do this by using ftin instead of in when using {{convert}} Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added the "sigfig" parameter to some of these. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- No I mean, instead of saying "The holotype skull is about 716 mm (28 in) long", say "716 mm (2 ft 4 in)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added the "sigfig" parameter to some of these. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you find anything about a Tehuelche spirit named Kelenken? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos" I feel like this is supposed to be saying that Phorusrhacos was the largest phorusrhacid previously known, unless the other largest phorusrhacids (mysteriously unnamed) were all roughly the same height Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is actually a workaround because the other "phorusrhacid" mentioned in the paper, Brontornis, is generally not thought to belong to the group anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- "After the extinction of the non-bird dinosaurs, during the early Cenozoic" I think you should switch these 2 clauses Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism" this sounds like all birds did this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- " While they are the most speciose group within Cariamiformes" who's they? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to talk a lot about what happens well after Kelenken disappears from the fossil record, and I wonder if you should make it a point that Kelenken far predates the joining of the Americas, the extinction of the thylacosmilids, and the first phorusrhacids in North America if you're going to mention those kinds of things, especially because you never say how old Kelenken is until the very end of the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added the following before that part, which should make it clearer: "Kelenken itself lived during the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Add when they arrive in North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Most people aren't familiar with geological time, so an actual number date would be more useful than saying just Pliocene or Pleistocene by themselves Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Add when they arrive in North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added the following before that part, which should make it clearer: "Kelenken itself lived during the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The first 2 paragraphs of Paleobiology, do you think those could go under a Diet section? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It think it would be pointless unless a section about something other than diet is added under paleobiology, but there simply isn't anything to add yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Most people don't know what Paleobiology is, so a heading of Diet would be helpful for someone looking for info on diet specifically just checking the table of contents Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It think it would be pointless unless a section about something other than diet is added under paleobiology, but there simply isn't anything to add yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- For speeds, it's a bit strange to read m · h-1, and I'm worried the average person doesn't know how to read negative exponents. It'd be better if you used mph and kph Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's what the source says, I don't know enough about such equations to change it, and I'm not sure it's good to present a different format than what the source does. Perhaps Gog the Mild has ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Dunkleosteus' point. If it were my article, which it isn't, I would have 'suggested a speed of 50 km/h (31mph), and that of Mesembriornis suggested 97 km/h (60mph)' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you got confused with the source's units actually. The source says 14, 27, and 29 m · s-1 (meters per second), but you write m · h-1 (meters per hour) which is quite different. You should use the template for conversion, {{cvt|14|m/s|mph kph}} which outputs 14 m/s (31 mph; 50 km/h) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Dunkleosteus' point. If it were my article, which it isn't, I would have 'suggested a speed of 50 km/h (31mph), and that of Mesembriornis suggested 97 km/h (60mph)' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's what the source says, I don't know enough about such equations to change it, and I'm not sure it's good to present a different format than what the source does. Perhaps Gog the Mild has ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and less cursorial (adapted for running)" this gloss might be vague, since it's unclear if cursorial or less cursorial means adapted for running Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- For Skull and neck function, you should include somehow that the authors said "But all available evidence suggests that large-bodied taxa, such as other patagornithines (e.g., Andrewsornis, Patagornis) and the truly gigantic phorusrhacines (e.g., Kelenken, Devincenzia), resembled Andalgalornis in transforming all three flexion zones into thickened, reinforced, and immobile junctions" just to more clearly connect Andalgalornis to Kelenken. Right now it seems pretty tangential or out of place here. And surely Kelenken has a much more streamlined beak and the conclusions from FEA would've been pretty different had they studied Kelenken over Andalgalornis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added "such as Kelenken" after "and showed it had lost a large degree of intracranial immobility (mobility of skull bones in relation to each other), as was also the case for other large phorusrhacids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we need the part on intercranial mobility, just skip over to rigidity (since it's the same statement, just with more familiar words) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the diagram, if Andalgalornis is A–C, what're the other ones? I assume the seriema and the eagle Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added "the other skulls belong to a red-legged seriema and a white-tailed eagle". FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "at the sides and middle" when you say middle I thought you meant the top, halfway between the head and the tip, not the side of the beak in the middle (at least according to the image). It might be better to say in front of some anatomical landmark Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- "analyzed the flexibility of the neck" did they use FEA here too? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- In Paleoenvironment I think it would be nice to remind us when Kelenken existed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Wubslin
- Phorusrhacids were large, flightless birds with long hind limbs, narrow pelves, very small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak. Are "pelves" pelvises? I think an English plural is more suitable for our general readership than a Latin one, as this may make the meaning unclear.
- Kelenken differed from other phorusrhacids in a combination of features, including the length of its beak, in having a supraorbital ossification (a rounded edge above the eye socket) that fit into a socket of the postorbital process, and in having an almost triangular foramen magnum (the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters). That's quite a sentence! I suggest removing "a combination of features, including"
- Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of placental mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals. Rather than the apparent contradiction of saying one thing, then the contrary, I suggest recasting this sentence as "Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and apex predators. They dominated Cenozoic South America when there were few placental mammalian predators, and co-existed with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals." or something similar.
That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wubslin: - do you still anticipate having more comments here? Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Banded broadbill
Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.
- "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
- No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.
- Could we make them both lower case then.
- "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
- Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
- "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
- Removed definite article.
- "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
- Second reference is to upperparts.
- D'oh! Sorry.
- "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
- Changed all to singular.
- "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
- Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.
- Hmm. Ok.
- Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
- Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.
- That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.
- "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
- Rephrased.
That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
- Done.
- This individual[28] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
- Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.
- "All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species on the basis of morphology, which would make the current species monotypic (having only one subspecies)." but does anyone still follow that scheme? If it is an old proposition, could be said in past tense.
- IUCN/Birdlife still split it into two.
- "The species is called takau rimba in Malay and Nok Phaya Paak Kwaang laay leuang in Thai." Considering the nominate is from Indonesia, and some of the other subspecies occur there too, wouldn't it make sense to have the Indonesian name there?
- Haven't found any sources with the Indonesian name. The source for the Thai and Malay names is only a guide for the Malay Peninsula and thus restricts itself to those.
- "This larger clade is sister to one formed by the long-tailed broadbill and dusky broadbill. Both of these clades are sister to Grauer's broadbill." Is this level of text description detail needed when it is shown in the cladogram?
- Can't hurt, and might be helpful for those with screen readers or those who don't know how to "read" a cladogram.
- What do the subspecies names mean?
- Generally, this information isn't given in the article, as it's a bit excessively detailed.
- "It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it." Both parts of the sentence means the same, but I can see the latter part could be needed as an explanation.
- Yep, the second part is meant as an explanation for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.
- "The weight of 10 specimens of adults of pallidus" unnecessarily wordy, what about "The weight of 10 adult pallidus specimens"
- Done.
- "that allows it to mash and "chew" its food, helping the species consume relatively large prey." Isn't this more suited for the diet section?
- Well, I guess it might fit in there, but the first part of the sentence is actually describing its bill's appearance and size; the latter part is just there to provide an explanation for why the bill is so large.
- Explain anatomical terms like supercilium in parenthesis.
- Added glosses for supercilium and lores, but haven't added them for all the feathers, since those require a rather lengthy explanation of their function and position that would obscure the focus of the paragraph.
- You state the location of some pictured specimens, but not others, could be consistent.
- Added location for the picture lacking it, don't think the infobox image needs location as the subspecies is already mentioned.
- In one place you say "coloration", though the rest seems to be UK "colour".
- Fixed.
- "which splits the banded broadbill into two species" Which two species?
- Mentioned earlier in the taxonomy section, assuming readers are at least skimming it as they go through.
- And on that issue, what authority are we following here in only having one species? I believe we generally follow IOC, what do they say? In case the article will have to be split.
- IOC keeps it as one species, so that's how I've treated it.
- Terms like ovoid and lateral could be explained or replaced with common terms.
- Done.
- "is a striking species" Seems rather informal and hyperbolic for the very first sentence.
- Striking means distinctive or conspicuous, which it is; also, since the BOW account calls it "remarkable-looking" and "comical-looking", I thought that at least a cursory mention of its distinctive appearance was needed at the start.
- "is sometimes split into two species, one including only the nominate subspecies, E. j. javanicus, and one including all the remaining subspecies." The article body should go into this in more detail under taxonomy. What is the name of the other supposed species, and what is its nominate subspecies?
- Adde extra detail in taxonomy.
- On what basis are the other subspecies grouped together to the exclusion of the nominate?
- Added.
- Link arthropod in intro.
- Done.
- Not a big deal, but instead of having the very long double image of immatures, perhaps use one of them under reproduction where immatures are mentioned, and perhaps give the month the photo was taken (can be seen in the exif data of the photos) in the image caption, since this seems important in the text?
- Added months, but I think the images are best placed where they are.
- "the other subspecies as being of least concern" Shouldn't this be the other species? I don't think they cover subspecies.
- The other subspecies as in all three of them, changed to "and all the other" to make it clearer. I think saying subspecies maintains internal consistency, since the rest of the article treats it as one species, not two.
- Should be possible to identify which subspecies are pictured from their locations?
- FunkMonk, I've added the etymologies of all the ssp names in footnotes, which seems to be the last of the issues you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support - looking nice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Aa77zz
Description
- "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
- Reworded.
- "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
- The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
- Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
- Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
- The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
- Done.
Distribution
- link Indochina
Breeding
- Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
- Added.
References
- The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
- Removed archive links to BHL content.
- The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
- Removed link.
- Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
- But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
- Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
- See above
- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Support - the changes look good. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:EurylaimusJavanicusDist.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
- File:Banded_Broadbill_-_Adult_feeding_juvenile.jpg is of rather poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - Are you comfortable with signing off on the image review, or do you believe more still needs to be done? Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled with the quality of the juvenile image but will not oppose over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - Are you comfortable with signing off on the image review, or do you believe more still needs to be done? Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
- For the web and journal cites, you give the publisher only where the publisher is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Is there a reason for the inconsistency?
- No reason, just what the default citation generator produced. Should I remove them?
- The only requirement is consistency. Removing them is probably the easiest option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- No reason, just what the default citation generator produced. Should I remove them?
Suggest adding the "subscription required" icon for those Cornell Lab references that are not free access.- Done.
That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Pass. I removed one more that I think you missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Second Punic War
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: As always, a great article by our FA regulars. I haven't read through the whole article, but the paragraphs are a bit odd: some are really long (>200 words), and some are just one sentence long. I also think that center-aligning captions is a bit odd, but feel free to ignore this complaint. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:
- "a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
- Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
- "personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
- Certainly, but point taken.
- "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
- An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
- "The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
- Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
- "if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
- What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
- "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
- :-) Fixed.
- "nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
- This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
- Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
- "A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
- I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
- "the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article
- Hmm. Gone.
More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Concluding
Only four more comments:
- The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
- Good thinking. Done.
- The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
- Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
- "they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
- Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
- "'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?
- "them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by T8612
Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.
- Polybius The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
- I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
- Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
- Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
- You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
- Two modern sources:
- A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
- John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi T8612, response in two parts:
- 1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again T8612:
- 2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog, I checked Goldsworthy and there are several places where he wrote in support of the points I mentioned above:
- p. 21 on Polybius and Scipio His association with Scipio Aemilianus did result in a very favourable depiction of the role played by his relatives in the conflict. [...] Polybius does much to exonerate the elder Paullus for responsibility for this disaster [Cannae]... p. 199 The latter [Paullus] was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus and therefore receives a very favourable treatment from Polybius...
- p. 21 also mentions that Polybius' text breaks in 216 (therefore he can't be the "main source" for the 2PW).
- p. 22 on Livy more detailed than Polybius Livy provides more detail than Polybius concerning Roman politics, especially some of the controversial elections, and of Rome’s state religion.
- Have you been able to read Briscoe & Hornblower? T8612 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @T8912: - Has this been resolved? Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, and it's my fault. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @T8912: - Has this been resolved? Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog, I checked Goldsworthy and there are several places where he wrote in support of the points I mentioned above:
- Hi T8612 and apologies for taking so ridiculously long to get back to you. (RL has been silly busy; other things on WP have distracted me; and rereading all of my sources, plus the one you sent me, plus some others discovered along the way has made my brain want to melt.) I have a draft replacement at User:Gog the Mild/sandbox. You were completely correct in many of your specific criticisms of the current one, which certainly cannot remain as is. I thing that the draft more or less gets the correct balance for a summary style, although it has regrettably grown from 285 to 313 words. Your comments on my attempt would be most welcome. Feel free to edit directly onto the sandbox if that is easier. If you can see ways to trim back the verbiage, that would also be good. Thanks.Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog. I've amended a bit your sandbox draft to give more details about Livy and Plutarch. I've tried to make it short.
- I'm not familiar with the sfn template, but is it possible to merge the note to Mineo with Mineo's ref? T8612 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
- Done.
- "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
- " by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
- That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
- "Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
- Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
- "After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
- It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
- With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- High praise indeed. Thank you Wehwalt. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
- Two maps enlarged.
- I am seeing MOS:COLOUR. Which part in particular would you like to draw my attention to?
- The first point: avoid using colour as the only means of conveying information. Without being able to see colour several of the shades in these maps are indistinguishable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Background map is missing a legend
- Very strange. Thank you. The version of this map with a legend swapped in.
- File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
- I hadn't understood it to mean that, but removed.
- File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
- And neither linked to the actual original sources anyway. It was a complete pig tracking them down, but done. (It turns out that I own both of them - *rolly eyes*.)
- File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
- Oops. Done.
- File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work.
- Sloppy, sloppy. Done.
- Ditto File:Bust_of_Sulla_(loan_from_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek)_-_Glyptothek_-_Munich_-_Germany_2017.jpg.
- And done.
Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like most of these are still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies Nikkimaria, I was busy in RL, put this on the back burner and then overlooked it. Thanks both for prompting me and for going through the images in the first place. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Compassionate727
Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.
- First, I can tell you really hate commas. In fact, I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the places there should be commas but aren't; I'm just going to fix them.
- Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
- FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says:
Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used.
(Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma. - I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Lead
The Romans established a lodgement in north-east Iberia
When did this happen? A year would be nice.
- Good point. Done.
took the offensive in Iberia and were badly defeated, while maintaining their hold
Don't like this construction, would prefer "were badly defeated but maintained": parallelism is pretty.
- I slightly prefer mine, but done.
The final engagement of the war took place between armies under Scipio and Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202
strike "battle of", it's unnecessary when we already mentioned it was an engagement. If you prefer specifying that it was a battle (don't know what else it would be, but whatever), you can replace "engagement" with "battle"
- Done.
resulted in Hannibal's defeat and in Carthage suing for peace.
Personally, I think it would sound better without repeating the second "in", but this is a mild preference.
- Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
The peace treaty imposed on the Carthaginians stripped them
I would strike the imposition part. It seems odd to speak of a peace treaty being imposed when it didn't follow an unconditional surrender, and even if there is a sourcing reason for it, here it's just clunky. As it is, we can already tell that the treaty was quite harsh from the fact that most Carthaginian politicians opposed it
- Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
- Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't insist on the word "imposition", but this sense needs to be retained in order to follow the sources.
- Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Henceforth it was clear
thatCarthage was politically
- Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry - just spotted this. You don't need 'that'. I'd probably use one, but it's fine with or without. See current edition of Fowler, p. 808. Tim riley talk 07:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. That stays out then. (I shall abstain from Fowler, if only to spare the wallcovering of whichever room I might read it in.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Scipio was awarded a triumph and received the agnomen "Africanus".
"received" seems redundant
- Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
- Would that not be a fair statement? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
- Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
- Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
- Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write:
Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"
? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- This sentence now remove from the lead. (I did some trimming to make space for some other issues in the lead requested by AirshipJungleman29 below.
- Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write:
- "reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
- Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
- Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
- Would that not be a fair statement? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Opposing forces
The balance were equipped as heavy infantry
"rest" or "remainder", not "balance". This isn't a bank account.
- Done.
into three ranks, of which the front rank
would prefer these clauses be separated by a colon or semi-colon (not certain off-hand which is correct) and "of which" eliminated
- Done.
second and third ranks had a thrusting spear
carried? bore? wielded? just not "had", please
- Changed.
Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries
For some reason, when "both" leads like that, my brain's first reaction is to think that it means two sub-units. Maybe move it to afterward? Also, what the heck is a "sub-unit" in this context?
- 1. Done. 2. sub unit
- The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
- The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Done. 2. sub unit
legionaries fought in
a?relatively open order
- Er, no.
- Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Er, no.
elect two men each year, known as consuls, as senior magistrates, who
Is it really necessary to specify that consuls were senior magistrates? I think everyone can infer this. If you feel like it is, the sentence would flow better if the title came after category of job (e.g., "two mean each year as senior magistrates, called consuls").
- I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
at time of war
"at" should be "during," and "time of" is a waste of words
- 'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
- Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- "in" is fine. Changed.
- Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- 'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
would each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining two Roman legions
This implies that there would be four Roman legions fielded during war (2+2=4), when the second sentence says that traditionally only two total legions of Romans were fielded. Not sure which is correct, but please fix.
- Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army
i.e., mercenaries, or should I understand something else here?
- You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
were from North Africa and so were frequently
Does this mean that even non-North African troops were called "Libyans," so long as they weren't Carthaginians?
- Clarified.
provided several types of fighter, including: close order infantry
while I understand why you wanted a colon there, I doubt it is correct
- Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
- It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
experienced infantry and cavalry. The
seinfantry were
- Done.
The Gallic cavalry, and possibly some of the Iberians, wore armour
Unless your sources are stressing the possibility that some Iberians were heavy calvary, I would leave the possibilizing to the next sentence ("most or all" is adequate, I think)
- Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
- Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
- Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
- I'm realizing I don't really understand what "open-order" and "close-order" means. I don't suppose there's something you could wikilink?
- The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
- Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
- More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
Primary sources
I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Background
The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details
I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- @Gog the Mild: I'll take the lack of a response to mean that you disagree with me that those details are excessive. That's fine, I suppose; we may just have different instincts regarding the appropriate level of background detail. Here's what I intend to be a little more forceful about: I think that the level of detail given for the prelude to the First Punic War is very imbalanced when compared to the level of detail provided regarding the war itself. If you want to keep the amount of detail you currently have in the first paragraph, I will strongly encourage you to expand the second a little. Just a sentence or two outlining the course of the war in very general terms would, I believe, help maintain parity of detail in that section. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. But I'll take a look at both paragraphs and see what I feel I can do. Note that even if it is agreed/established that something in an article is not a major fact or detail this does not mean that the article is failing the criteria. To do that it has to go into "unnecessary detail" or not use WP:summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07.
- Pyrrhic War removed, a little unhappily. A couple of other tweaks made along the lines you suggest. You are correct about my skimping on the 1PW. I have expanded and may yet add a little more. (If I do I'll let you know.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. But I'll take a look at both paragraphs and see what I feel I can do. Note that even if it is agreed/established that something in an article is not a major fact or detail this does not mean that the article is failing the criteria. To do that it has to go into "unnecessary detail" or not use WP:summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07.
- @Gog the Mild: I'll take the lack of a response to mean that you disagree with me that those details are excessive. That's fine, I suppose; we may just have different instincts regarding the appropriate level of background detail. Here's what I intend to be a little more forceful about: I think that the level of detail given for the prelude to the First Punic War is very imbalanced when compared to the level of detail provided regarding the war itself. If you want to keep the amount of detail you currently have in the first paragraph, I will strongly encourage you to expand the second a little. Just a sentence or two outlining the course of the war in very general terms would, I believe, help maintain parity of detail in that section. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
- FWIW, I might propose text like this:
The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island,
(Sicily?)and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War.
—Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- I would also consider glossing
the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia
as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
- Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Compassionate727 and apologies for the hiatus. I have now, I think, addressed all of your points above, agreeing with most but not all, and am eagerly awaiting your next contribution. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I've been busy too, especially this past week. I'll add more as I have time.
- Hi Compassionate727 and apologies for the hiatus. I have now, I think, addressed all of your points above, agreeing with most but not all, and am eagerly awaiting your next contribution. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
- I would also consider glossing
- This section uses the name "Truceless War" (wikilinked) in the second paragraph and "Mercenary War" (without a wikilink) in the third. It wasn't immediately obvious to me that both names refer to the same conflict. I would suggest picking one and sticking with it.
- D'oh! Fixed.
After the First Punic War, Carthaginian possessions in Iberia
Did Carthage lose territory in Iberia as a result of the First Punic War? To my mind, including that particular temporal clause after having already specified the timeframe in the previous sentence implies that they did; if this was not the case, I would suggest omitting it.
- Hmm. Ok. Gone. Although it now reads a little clunkily to me. Hmm again, I have unclunked it, but this results in a monster sentence. How would you feel about "At the time"?
- "At the time" should be fine, I think. I believe that, more so than the redundancy, it was how "with the suppression of the rebellion" and "after the First Punic War" are actually slightly different timepoints that gave rise to a potential phantom of meaning (in my mind, anyway), since I was wondering if there was a significance to the slight pivot.
- Hmm. Ok. Gone. Although it now reads a little clunkily to me. Hmm again, I have unclunked it, but this results in a monster sentence. How would you feel about "At the time"?
in the early 220s BC and then his son, Hannibal, in 221 BC
This construction has the potential to be slightly confusing due to the nature of BC years. (Early chronologically and early numerically are at opposite ends of the decade.) Did Hasdrubal not immediately succeed Hamilcar as viceroy? If he did, I would suggest specifying the exact year.
- I was following what I thought was the best source, but have found one with a precise date. Amended. Good nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
In 219 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum and in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage.
My memory of this event isn't perfect, but I feel like you could (and probably should) say a little bit more about incident that sparked the war.
- Very little is known with certainty. I have added the duration. Most of what you have read was probably based on Livy, about whom modern sources are even more scathing than usual for this event. To quote from just one HQ RS: "his chronology at this point is hopelessly confused"; "it is probably best to reject this"; "Livy even claims that ..." (This last the author feeling that they have to state one of the common "facts" about the siege - that Hannibal was wounded - but, unusually, distancing themselves from what they are writing.) I could go on. ("the more unreliable Livy") Even "facts" supported by Polybius are hedged with things like - to use a third HQ RS "at least suggest that he was not too unwilling to ..."; you what? I have expanded on the political to and froing preceding Rome's declaration of war a little.
- The politics was really what I was looking for; sacked the city straight into war seemed a little to abrupt. Thanks.
- Very little is known with certainty. I have added the duration. Most of what you have read was probably based on Livy, about whom modern sources are even more scathing than usual for this event. To quote from just one HQ RS: "his chronology at this point is hopelessly confused"; "it is probably best to reject this"; "Livy even claims that ..." (This last the author feeling that they have to state one of the common "facts" about the siege - that Hannibal was wounded - but, unusually, distancing themselves from what they are writing.) I could go on. ("the more unreliable Livy") Even "facts" supported by Polybius are hedged with things like - to use a third HQ RS "at least suggest that he was not too unwilling to ..."; you what? I have expanded on the political to and froing preceding Rome's declaration of war a little.
Rome made a separate agreement
Do we know anything about this agreement? The vague recollection I have from my college Spanish history class is that it wasn't a formal alliance and Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext, and I'm pretty sure we don't know much, but if we could be any more specific than just "an agreement," that would be nice.
- You are pretty spot on in that "it wasn't a formal alliance", "Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext" and "we don't know much". So calling it an "agreement" is about as specific as we can be - it is not clear that it was either formal or written. It seems that both sides were up for a confrontation and the situation around Saguntum would do as well as anything - regardless of any actual wrongs or rights.
- Hi Compassionate727, I believe that I have now addressed all of your comments to date. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been busy and will continue to be for another week as my summer class wraps up. I hope to have time to finish commenting after that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Compassionate727, I believe that I have now addressed all of your comments to date. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from HAL
- Would dropping "which were" from the first sentence be an improvement?
- Lol! You are so right. What convoluted phraseology. Changed.
- There is some inconsistency in the content of the captions. Sometimes there is a bit of context on the artwork, and elsewhere it only has the name of who is depicted.
- Yerse. I am probably being slow, but I am missing your point. Is this a problem? Happy to remove information if it is.
- It's not a big deal. I was thinking of actually adding more info to the captions. For instance, adding "1704 French bust" in the Hannibal caption, etc. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good grief no. Who cares? It's like mentioning sources in line for each paragraph of prose. If readers want more information, they can click on the images, just like they could chase the cites. I didn't add all of the images, and while I have trimmed the fluff from some, for others I have gritted my teeth and left as is. Bleh! What the heck - if that is all you want I'll grit my teeth harder. Done.
- It's not a big deal. I was thinking of actually adding more info to the captions. For instance, adding "1704 French bust" in the Hannibal caption, etc. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yerse. I am probably being slow, but I am missing your point. Is this a problem? Happy to remove information if it is.
- In the 'Primary sources' section, "Carthaginian" and "Roman" are linked yet "Greek" isn't.
- Ho hum. (MOS:OVERLINK). "Greek" now linked, although I am not really happy with it.
- Link Craige B. Champion
- Thanks. Done.
- 'Much of Polybius's account of the Second Punic War is missing, or only exists in fragmentary form." needs a source.
- Since I took it to GAN someone had "helpfully" introduced a paragraph break and I somehow missed it. Well spotted. Fixed.
- "if there was a direct threat to the city" Should that be if there were? I'm unsure myself...
- Umm. I see what you mean, but surely 'if there was a direct threat to the city' or 'if there were direct threats to the city'? No?
- An Engvar thing. Until fairly recently in BrE the subjunctive was thought to be on the way out, but lately it seems to be making a comeback, infected by AmE. The phrasing as drawn is the correct BrE for now. Tim riley talk 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not that we Americans are particularly consistent about when we use the subjunctive, either. But yes, the English subjunctive is pretty much always optional in conditional and counterfactual constructions; "if there was" is fine. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- An Engvar thing. Until fairly recently in BrE the subjunctive was thought to be on the way out, but lately it seems to be making a comeback, infected by AmE. The phrasing as drawn is the correct BrE for now. Tim riley talk 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Umm. I see what you mean, but surely 'if there was a direct threat to the city' or 'if there were direct threats to the city'? No?
- "When they did they fought" clunky
- I disagree. It reads fine to me. But I would be happy to consider alternatives.
- I know you hate commas, but adding one here would make it more obvious to us Americans that
they did they
isn't an error. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Well, if it helps readers. Where would you like it? (I have mentally inserted one in every possibility, and each just reduces the phrase to nonsense to my eyes. PS, have I yet referred you to the grammar writer Lynne Truss - [29]?
- I should never have shared that quote with you! If I were to insert a comma, he said, carefully using the subjunctive, it would be "When they did, they fought...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- No good deed goes unpunished. That almost makes sense. Fair enough - inserted. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I should never have shared that quote with you! If I were to insert a comma, he said, carefully using the subjunctive, it would be "When they did, they fought...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if it helps readers. Where would you like it? (I have mentally inserted one in every possibility, and each just reduces the phrase to nonsense to my eyes. PS, have I yet referred you to the grammar writer Lynne Truss - [29]?
- I know you hate commas, but adding one here would make it more obvious to us Americans that
- I disagree. It reads fine to me. But I would be happy to consider alternatives.
- "if a combat" is the 'a' needed?
- I think so. Possibly I am being over subtle, but it does change the meaning. (Ie, it is not a case of the battle as a whole being protracted ("if combat") so much as the particular sub-battle they were engaged in ("if a combat").)
- Is the nuance you are driving at that within a particular battle, the shock infantry would sometimes charge, disengage, then charge again? Otherwise, I'm not sure the difference is actually substantial. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. Although they might. The one I outline above. The more I think on't the more it seems to be needed. If it's clunky I could completely rewrite? (Albeit in a slightly less summary style.)
- Is the nuance you are driving at that within a particular battle, the shock infantry would sometimes charge, disengage, then charge again? Otherwise, I'm not sure the difference is actually substantial. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think so. Possibly I am being over subtle, but it does change the meaning. (Ie, it is not a case of the battle as a whole being protracted ("if combat") so much as the particular sub-battle they were engaged in ("if a combat").)
- "Carthage never attempted to use its fleet decisively" I'm not sure what that means.... Is there a more clear way to word that?
- Oof! It seems pretty clear to me. Which possibly means I am too close to it or trying to be too succinct. Let me think on't.
- While most of the changes you made were an improvement,
and not to act aggressively
decidedly is equally, if not more, vague. The impression I'm getting is that the Carthaginian fleet tried to avoid a pitched battle; if that is what you mean, I would suggest saying so. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- I think the real problem is that the sources are even vaguer. Fair nuff, they are trying to get 17 years into a sentence or two. Straining them a little I have "when it did it was usually to escort transport ships; it rarely acted aggressively." How's that?
- While most of the changes you made were an improvement,
- Oof! It seems pretty clear to me. Which possibly means I am too close to it or trying to be too succinct. Let me think on't.
More comments to come. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi HAL333 and thanks for this. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "well treated" --> "well-treated"
- Is there a high-quality image of Fabius you could add?
The Roman populace derided Fabius as the Cunctator ("the Delayer") and at the elections of 216 BC elected as consuls Gaius Terentius Varro who advocated pursuing a more aggressive war strategy and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who advocated a strategy somewhere between Fabius's and that suggested by Varr
is a bit of a run-on.
- True. Broken with a colon.
The historian Richard Miles
As you've already introduced Miles, could you just use "Miles"?
- Yep. Sorry.
A second force, under Hannibal's youngest brother Mago
This is really nit-picky and I'm not sure if it's incorrect: should that be "younger"? If Hannibal only had two brothers, there can't be a 'youngest' out of two.
- I believe he had more than two; but anyway, both were 'younger' than him, so noe was "youngest".
- Is Marco Centenius Penula worthy of a redlink?
- I don't much care. I don't remember linking it and it isn't currently.
- Would moving the map of Scipio's African campaign to the right be more aesthetically appealing?
- I tried it before and didn't like it. I have just switched it and still don't, so have put it back. But if you feel strongly I could live with it on the right.
That's all. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from AirshipJungleman29
I haven't done this before, so please bear with me.
- Everyone starts sometime and it always cheers me up to see new people reviewing at FAC - and bringing new view points. If I really don't like a suggestion or seriously disagree I shall say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the lead seems slightly confused—specifically, the placement of the sentence explaining the war's outbreak between more sentences more geographical than it. Would it not make more sense to place "In 219 BC..." as the second sentence, with the other chronological details?
- Would it help if I broke the paragraph immediately before "In 219 BC..."? (I could amalgamate the last two paragraphs to stay within the maximum of four.) This would make the opening paragraph the overall summary (per MOS:OPEN) and the following three the detailed break down.
- I think that might work, if the new second paragraph begins with the military theatre discussion (or if the first paragraph ended with it).
- Actually there are two discussions of the military theatres in the first paragraph, so one is probably redundant.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rereading after a break I can see that you are correct and I am not, so moved as you suggested.
- Actually there are two discussions of the military theatres in the first paragraph, so one is probably redundant.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that might work, if the new second paragraph begins with the military theatre discussion (or if the first paragraph ended with it).
- Would it help if I broke the paragraph immediately before "In 219 BC..."? (I could amalgamate the last two paragraphs to stay within the maximum of four.) This would make the opening paragraph the overall summary (per MOS:OPEN) and the following three the detailed break down.
- Also, "which were" seems removable from the first sentence.
- Yes, indeed. Gone.
- Do you think the lead should mention the first and third wars explicitly, rather than only indirectly in the first sentence?
- Again, rereading after a break I agree with you. I have removed some information which in the context of the lead is too much detail and added a brief summary of both wars. What do you think?
- I feel like the link to Battle of the Upper Baetis in the lead should enclose the "were" of "were badly defeated". Something something verbs something something gut feeling I don't know.
- I know what you mean, but that is not the usual convention. If there is a general feeling to include "were" - and similarly in similar cases - I am relaxed about doing so.
- I'll stay out of the source discussion above, save for generally aligning with the nominator's viewpoint, which seems to concur with those of the RS I have to hand.
- Cheers. :-)
- Never a fan of one-sentence paragraphs, and even less of one-sentence sections. If the navies section is only worth one sentence, surely it isn't worth a separate section? Armies and navies aren't that diametrically opposed.
- Very good point. Sections fixed. And I am with you as a rule on single sentence paragraphs, so rewritten to now be three sentences.
- Couldn't "The immediate cause... the First Punic War." be combined into one sentence? That might solve the mini-issue of the First Punic War being referred to multiple times before its linking.
- Resolved a little differently. I think it's resolved, see what you think.
- I'm not entirely sure that the "There were three main military theatres" sentence needs to be in the background section.
- Ho hum. Ok. Deleted.
Will continue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great stuff AirshipJungleman29, thank you. I have cherry picked some of your comments to respond to. I shall come back at the others later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I am impressed by your comments so far - you are giving my prose a good kicking and it seems warranted. Your comments to date addressed above and your next instalment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great stuff AirshipJungleman29, thank you. I have cherry picked some of your comments to respond to. I shall come back at the others later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nice to hear my comments are at least somewhat tolerable. Your edits to the lead have significantly improved it, in my opinion. To finish it off, the prose of the last paragraph in the lead are somewhat too bullet-pointy (esp. the lines about the peace treaty conditions; the line "Henceforth it was clear Carthage was politically subordinate to Rome." is particularly reminiscent of a secondary-school textbook, in my opinion). Lastly, I think the Third Punic War could be referred to in one sentence: the storming, sacking, and slaughtering is less important than the ending of Carthaginian civilization.
- Ah. The sources are clear that Carthaginian civilisation was not ended by the sacking etc. See the second paragraph of Third Punic War#Aftermath, which I took to FA a couple of years ago.
- I stand corrected.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah. The sources are clear that Carthaginian civilisation was not ended by the sacking etc. See the second paragraph of Third Punic War#Aftermath, which I took to FA a couple of years ago.
- "several types of fighter": is the choice of the last word to convey some sort of disorderliness compared to the more organised 'soldier'?
- Yes. Ie, they were recruited as fighters and trained to become soldiers. Let me know if you think I am getting too clever there, I can always change it; although "types of soldier" would not work.
- Another single sentence paragraph is in the Macedonia section.
- Yes. The topic doesn't warrant more than a sentence and there is no other paragraph with which it could sensibly be grouped. So IMO the awkward single sentence paragraph is the least bad option.
- Also, perhaps a sentence more on the First Macedonian War?
- I am not sure why, but ok.
- Most of your body prose is excellent, so I think that's about it. Hope you'll forgive my minor quibbles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AirshipJungleman29, I think I have addressed all of your concerns above, although you may wish to check that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I now wholeheartedly support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AirshipJungleman29, I think I have addressed all of your concerns above, although you may wish to check that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you AirshipJungleman29, much appreciated - even the bits I grumbled about. I hope that you didn't find it too bad, perhaps even enjoyed it. Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, can I encourage you to review another candidate for FA some time soon? You are just the sort of reviewer that FAC needs poring over its nominees. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild, to tell the truth, I originally came here because I myself intend to submit an article or two for FAC in the near future, and I wished to gain firsthand knowledge of the process. I have, however, enjoyed my mini-break here, so I will probably return wearing a reviewer hat in the near future. Cheers! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Pass. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
CSS Baltic
- Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm
A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
CommentSupport: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- @CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Vami
Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- How often do we describe the Federal government during the Civil War as the "Union" on the English Wikipedia, and in the modern historiography of the war?
- From what I've seen probably over 70% of recent works still use "Union", although a lot of what I read is bio/campaign histories and I'd say it's probably the more social-history stuff that use "United States" or other terms (Ed Bearss used "Federals", which is probably the second most common thing I see). As of right now, I'd say that "Union" is still probably the primary usage form, although it's possible that's no longer the case in 5-10 years. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
[...] the process of converting her into a military vessel began on December 22.[1] The process of converting her into an [...]
Could use a switchup in the verbiage here.
A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- This seems to be missing any background or context. After the description the narrative starts "On May 12, 1862, Baltic was transferred by Alabama to the Confederate States Navy." How about a summary of what the ACW was, its broad outline to that date and something about the struggle for control of the navigable rivers and why this was important so we know what gave rise to the building of the Baltic. Something on what she was intended to do and how she compared with other riverine ships of the time would also be useful.
- Given that this is a short article, I don't want to delve too much into backstory. I've added another sentence about the importance of controlling the coast, which should go with the mentions of Port Royal and Fts. Hatteras and Clark up in the construction section to make it clear why the ship was built (this one had little to do with the riverine warfare) I'm afraid that a comparison with other riverine ships of the time isn't really possible - there's just too little about her pre-Confederate career, and her CSA naval career can be summarized as "floating pile of trash". I have added the mention of Fort Sumter as the start of the war. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
- @Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- In passing: "the ship was too deteriorated for service, and was afterwards used to place naval mines". Is mine laying not "service"?
- Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Optional: put the second paragraph (commencing "During the early 19th century") at the start. Possibly in a separate "Background" section.
- "she served on Mobile Bay". I assume "on" rather than 'in' is a USEng varient.
- "when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter". Perhaps 'when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter'?
- "the crew frequently slept outside of the ship". Do you mean on the deck, or ashore?
- "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders (presumably in addition to the Dahlgren guns). I am unsure what the bit in brackets adds.
- Could we have an in line description/explanation of "cottonclad".
- "and was afterwards relegated to placing naval mines". Suggest deleting "afterwards".
- "On May 20, after Porter's inspection". I suspect that a reader can remember from the prior sentence that Porter's inspection had already taken place.
- "mud scow". Perhaps a Wiktionary link?
- "With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee." Delete "later".
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
- The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Second reading
- Construction and characteristics section: the first paragraph is nothing to do with either of these.
- Suggest deleting "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution."
- Could we have something - a sentence might do - on the effect, if any, and/or the intended effect of the blockade on the Confederate military.
- Could you confirm that her armament was either "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders" or "one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders". Ie, in the latter case there were no Dahlgrens.
- "her armament consisted of two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders." Grammae: either delete "with" or replace it with 'of'.
- Canney actually says "2 Dahlgrens and 3 x 32 pdrs (also reported as one 42-pdr with 2 x 32 pdrs)", which I interpret as 2 Dahlgrens and either 3 x 32 pdrs or 1 x 42 pdr and 2 x 32 pdrs. YMMV--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The link to scow does little to convey to the uninitiated what a "mud scow" might be. A scow made out of mud perhaps? A mud coloured scow? A scow whose name was mud? wikt:one's name is mud. Something else?
- I dunno exactly what a mud scow is. I suspect that it's a boat that handles the stuff that a dredger brings up from a river or harbor bottom, but I can't swear that that's correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've linked to wikt:mud scow, which seems to be the right thing. Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I dunno exactly what a mud scow is. I suspect that it's a boat that handles the stuff that a dredger brings up from a river or harbor bottom, but I can't swear that that's correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Source for casemate type?
- What do you mean? We only link to casemate ironclad.
- Yes - looking for a cite for the claim that type = casemate ironclad. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - what are your thoughts on this? Joiner and DANFS call her an ironclad ram and Still p. 93 explicitly states "With the exception of two conversions - the Manassas and the Baltic - every Confederate ironclad placed in commission had an armored shield to protect its guns and machinery" when discussing the Confederate casemate ironclads. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ironclad ram is kind of an old-fashioned term for a casemate ironclad, IMO, as it's almost the only term used up until the 1970s or so for all of the Confederate ironclads. I'm not gonna get too fussed over the two terms, although I'm not sure that Still actually had any evidence that Baltic's superstructure wasn't armored, especially since Manassas was entirely armored above the waterline, but lacked a superstructure. We know the specifications of the Baltic's armor, but not where it was placed, so we can't positively say that Still is wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - what are your thoughts on this? Joiner and DANFS call her an ironclad ram and Still p. 93 explicitly states "With the exception of two conversions - the Manassas and the Baltic - every Confederate ironclad placed in commission had an armored shield to protect its guns and machinery" when discussing the Confederate casemate ironclads. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes - looking for a cite for the claim that type = casemate ironclad. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean? We only link to casemate ironclad.
- Armament in infobox doesn't match text
- It matches Luraghi, but not Canney.
- Is there a reason to believe one is better than the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It matches Luraghi, but not Canney.
- Luraghi: what's the original that was translated? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the cite book template supports that info since trans-title is for books published in a foreign language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but what's the rationale to remove translator? Is this a translation of something, or is it an original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria - from the copyright page of my print version: "First published in Italian as Marinai del Sud: Storia della Marina confederata nella Guerra Civile Americana, 1861-1865 by Rizzoli in 1993". I am not really sure what to do with that information. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Translator never should have been there in the first place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria - from the copyright page of my print version: "First published in Italian as Marinai del Sud: Storia della Marina confederata nella Guerra Civile Americana, 1861-1865 by Rizzoli in 1993". I am not really sure what to do with that information. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but what's the rationale to remove translator? Is this a translation of something, or is it an original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the cite book template supports that info since trans-title is for books published in a foreign language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Pendright
Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: My circumstaces are such that I will be unable to reiew the article. My apoligy! Pendright (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Dugan Murphy
I'll add something here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "and the layout of the vessel is largely unknown" doesn't really fit at the end of that sentence, which otherwise is a description of the ship's cladding. I recommend breaking that off as a separate sentence.
- Split sentence
- "transferred by Alabama" – I think "Alabama" should be "State of Alabama" to make it clear that it was a state-owned ship before being transferred to the Navy.
- Done
I'll write more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the ship described in the lede and the infobox as a casemate ironclad but in the body as simply an ironclad?
- I'm less familiar with the terminology in this sector, so I'll have to defer to my co-nominator, @Sturmvogel 66: Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because the exact type of ironclad has already been given. This is just a shorter form. Just like introducing a ship as an armored cruiser and then using cruiser from there on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Because the lede and infobox serve to summarize the body, I'm under the impression that all information in both should be present in the body. With that in mind, I recommend that the ship be described as a casemate ironclad in the body, wherever you think that is most appropriate. Perhaps in describing the ship's refitting for military service. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Because the lede and infobox serve to summarize the body, I'm under the impression that all information in both should be present in the body. With that in mind, I recommend that the ship be described as a casemate ironclad in the body, wherever you think that is most appropriate. Perhaps in describing the ship's refitting for military service. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because the exact type of ironclad has already been given. This is just a shorter form. Just like introducing a ship as an armored cruiser and then using cruiser from there on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm less familiar with the terminology in this sector, so I'll have to defer to my co-nominator, @Sturmvogel 66: Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to reference Bisbee in the lede? Unless Bisbee's name is particularly notable or the issue particularly contentious, I think "naval historian Saxon Bisbee believes that" is too much detail for the lede.
- Removed
- Does the book listed as further reading offer something that the listed sources do not? If so, why is it not included as a source? Really what I'm getting at is, do you think including a section on further reading adds value that the sources list does not already add?
- I don't own a copy of this work, but I believe that it gives further technical details on the models of cannon that would be used on this type of ship, so I think it is a useful addition.
That's it for comments, I think. Overall, I find this article easy to read and well-cited to what seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection of reliable-looking sources. I think the lede does a good job of summarizing the article. It skips much of the background section (the part on general Civil War background that it seems was added during this nomination review), which I think is just fine. The infobox is a good summary of the stats listed in the body. Thank you for improving this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dugan Murphy: - I'm deferring to my co-nominator on one point, but the others should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Every comment seems to be addressed but the one you're leaving for Sturmvogel 66. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- My last comment having been addressed, I'm happy to support this nomination. @Sturmvogel 66: @Hog Farm: If either of you are up for being on the other side of the table, this FAC nomination of mine is getting old and doesn't have any comments yet beyond an image review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Pendright
@Hog Farm: My circumstaces have changed yet agan - leaving me free to review the article. I'll begin when the above review is wrapped up. Pendright (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Pendright: it looks like everything above has been ironed out. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
LEAD:
- After being transferred
overto the Confederate Navy [as an ironclad] in May 1862, she served on Mobile Bay off the Gulf of Mexico.
- Consider the above suggested changes
- Done
- Consider the above suggested changes
- Baltic's state in Confederate service was such that naval historian William N. Still Jr. has described her as "a nondescript vessel in many ways".[3]
- What is the correlation between "state" and "nondescript"?
- Went with "condition" instead
- What is the correlation between "state" and "nondescript"?
- She deteriorated over the next two years and became rotten.
- A few sentences below says, "upper hull and deck were rotten"?
- Her armor was removed to put onto the ironclad CSS Nashville in 1864.
- to "be" put, or "and" put
- "to put onto" works at least in Ozarks English, but have added a "be"
- to "be" put, or "and" put
- By that August, she had been decommissioned, and was taken up the Tombigbee River near the end of the war, where she was captured by Union forces on May 10, 1865.
- Drop the comma after decommissioned
- See below
- Add a comma after River - near the end of the war seems like supplemental informationon.
- I've actually split the sentence after decommissioned - the decommissioning happened in August but she wasn't taken up the Tombigbee until later.
- An inspection the next month found that her upper hull and deck were rotten and that her boilers were unsafe.
- An inapection of what?
- Added "of Baltic" to indicate that this was a general inspection of the ship
- An inapection of what?
BACKGROUND:
- During the early 19th century, a large cultural divide had developed between the northern and southern regions of the United States over slavery.
- As you know, many historians believe that it was "primarily" over slavery -> Add primarily
- Done
- As you know, many historians believe that it was "primarily" over slavery -> Add primarily
- Northerner Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 United States Presidential Election,[4] and a number of southern states seceded in late 1860 and early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America.[5]
- Consider this -> and [due to his anti-salvery position] a number of southern states seceded...
- Done
- For readers not famililar with the Civil War, might add a new sentence with something like this-> The northern states were generally ant-salvery while the southern states were generally pro-salvery.
- I've tacked something similar onto the sentence discussing the cultural divide
- The American Civil War broke out when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.[6]
- Could tell readers why the Fort was fired upon and that the small Union force surrendered.
- I've noted that the fort was within Confederate territory and that its garrison surrendered the next day
- At the beginning of the war, the Confederates were at a distinct naval disadvantage to the Union Navy
,[because it lacked]lackingships, infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities.[7]
- Consider the above suggestions
- Done
- Consider the above suggestions
- According to Bisbee, the vessel was taken to Mobile, Alabama, after her construction by Bragdon,[1] while the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) says that she was built for the Southern Steamship Company.[10]
- Chabge while to but
- Done
- Chabge while to but
- Most Confederate ironclads were screw steamers instead of paddle steamers; Baltic was one of the few paddle steamers actually completed within the Confederacy,[18] and naval historian Raimondo Luraghi described her propulsion as obsolescent.
- completed or converted?
- Changed to "Baltic was one of the few paddle steamer ironclads actually completed or converted within the Confederacy" as the ship clearly wasn't built the first time in the CSA, although the CSA did physically build a few ironclads besides the conversions
- Conditions inside were bad enough that the crew frequently slept outside of the ship.[20]
- inside ad outside - odd use of terms in this setting? As an old US Navy man, I suspect that the sleeping quarters of the crew were below deck and when the heat became unbearable they came topside and slept on the ship's deck.
- Source says "and the crews of several ships, such as the Albemarle and the Baltic, slept ashore or in the open air whenever possible". The context is referring to the general issues with CSA ironclads to have component parts heating up so bad they glowed red and the tendency of the machinery to emit toxic/unpleasant fumes. Give that the only information Baltic-specific notes that they slept on deck or on shore, I think the current phrasing is useful although I'd be open to rephrasing suggestions. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- inside ad outside - odd use of terms in this setting? As an old US Navy man, I suspect that the sleeping quarters of the crew were below deck and when the heat became unbearable they came topside and slept on the ship's deck.
SERVICE HISTORY:
- She served in Mobile Bay, the area around Mobile, Alabama, and in the Tombigbee River.
- Perhaps you could squeeze out a few things from the sources to beef it up a bit.
- Is it "in" or "on the Bay and River?
- By February 1863, the ship was too deteriorated for active service,[10] and was relegated to placing naval mines to protect Mobile Bay.[21]
- Add "she" between and & was
- On May 20, Simms wrote that Baltic was very rotten and was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow".
- Did he indicate where she was rotten ?
- On July 21, Simms was appointed to command Nashville, and the rest of Baltic's armor was removed to put on Nashville.[27]
- to "be' put on
- With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were sent up the Tombigbee.
- Tombigbee "River"
- The next month, Union authorities surveyed Baltic and noted that below the load line, she was in good condition, but that the portion of the hull above the load line and the deck were both rotten.
- Drop the comma after load line
- Change hull to "her" hull
@Hog Farm: Finished - I found the article a bit unusual; in that the subject of it had so few redemming values. Pendright (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Toa Payoh MRT station
This article is about Singapore's oldest MRT station, and this is my 5th FAC nomination. I hope for a successful review, and to have it passed and featured on 7 November. ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review Licensing looks fine but source is needed in the image description of File:SGMRT-LRT (zoom) map.svg for the location of the transit lines. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- buidhe Updated image description taken from here.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comments: Overall, a great article! However the prose is not exactly up to par in my opinion. Seeing "station" 4 times in the row at the start of "Station details" paragraphs is both repetitive and boring and some phrases are very ambiguous ("Train frequencies vary"?, "extension of eight months and additional monetary claims in November 1985" – is the extension or the claims made in Nov. 1985? Or is it just the claims?) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Technical ramblings: Image placement can be improved by moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section; there's no reason to collapse the track layout template as it is very short; some numbers can be written out such as 2.5 to 5 minutes -> two and a half to five minutes; "Notes and references" and its child headings are redundant, you only need "Notes" and "References" level 1 heading only; the note itself need wikilinking; DEFAULTSORT is redundant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section
- The two center-aligned images are there rather than in "Station details" as a compromise solution. Reason being that the track layout is floated right (seems to be the norm in these articles) and depending on screen/browser width, text size or zoom settings, it can interact with the infobox to cause really awkward layout, something like this. {{clear}} has been applied before the "Station details" heading to remedy that, but it causes a different issue on wider screens, leaving a really large blank space between sections due to the height of the infobox. The images help fill that space. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane made changes as per requested ZKang123 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730: I understand, thanks for the explanation. ZKang123: Thanks for your edits! I don't think my reviews are comprehensive enough for a support, but I do think that the prose is better now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Technical ramblings: Image placement can be improved by moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section; there's no reason to collapse the track layout template as it is very short; some numbers can be written out such as 2.5 to 5 minutes -> two and a half to five minutes; "Notes and references" and its child headings are redundant, you only need "Notes" and "References" level 1 heading only; the note itself need wikilinking; DEFAULTSORT is redundant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "this station is integrated" - I would just say "the station is integrated". It's clear that in the article you are only going to be talking about this station.
- It looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text in the first section but I guess there is nowhere else for them to go
- "A plaque at this station" => "A plaque at the station"
- "the contractor requested for an extension of eight months and additional claims" - I don't think this makes sense. What were the "additional claims"?
- "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section will open on 7 November that year" => firstly, this should be "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open on 7 November that year". And secondly, in the previous sentence you said it was set to open in 1988. Do we have any info on why they were able to open it ahead of schedule?
- "About 44,000 people visited the station" - this is an extremely short sentence, I would combine it with the previous one
- "But many expressed excitement and curiosity" - can't start a sentence with "But". Just remove the word completely, it will still make sense
- "with plenty others" => "with plenty of others"
- "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at this station" => "On the day itself, the emergency button was activated at Toa Payoh"
- "On 8 January 2006, this station" => "On 8 January 2006, Toa Payoh"
- "The station has two underground levels: The upper" - the second "the" does not start a new sentence so should not have a capital letter
- That's what I got on a first pass! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text
- I've attempted some layout tweaks, hopefully the new image placement is less awkward for the overall layout.
- For History section, highlight the commemorative plaque by placing it at top of section. Float left.
- Put photos of concourse and platform levels together in horizontal gallery at bottom of History section. Thumbnail heights matched, align centered
- HTH! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Sorry, I forgot all about this one. I'll try and take a look tomorrow as I am going out for my wedding anniversary tonight :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No sense of priority, that's the trouble with some people! ;-) Cheers CtD, have a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Sorry, I forgot all about this one. I'll try and take a look tomorrow as I am going out for my wedding anniversary tonight :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Epicgenius
Lead
- "HDB (Housing and Development Board)" - Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
- "Lorong 1 Toa Payoh, Lorong 2 Toa Payoh and Lorong 6 Toa Payoh" - Are these all street names?
- By the way, what does Toa Payoh mean? You may want to expand the lead a bit with details such as the station design and etymology.
- Actually in the GA reviewed version the etymology was there. Then I removed it at some point because some other GA stated that wasn't necessary. Might re-include.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be good if you did include a brief etymology here, given how you included such an etymology before. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually in the GA reviewed version the etymology was there. Then I removed it at some point because some other GA stated that wasn't necessary. Might re-include.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The station was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT system." - You may want to add details about when Phase I was proposed and when construction started, since you already have details about when construction was completed and when the station opened.
- I already stated late when construction started. Oh nvm, thought you were talking about the body. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, these comments are solely about the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I already stated late when construction started. Oh nvm, thought you were talking about the body. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- "On 7 November 1987, the station was one of the first MRT stations to open for revenue service." - I'd split this into two ideas, e.g. "The station opened on 7 November 1987 and was one of the first MRT stations to operate in revenue service."
I will leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
- An unusual situation, because the building is properly named "HDB Hub", using the abbreviation rather than the full name of the government body that it houses(ha!). I will tweak the phrasing.
Are these all street names?
- Yes. Tweaked wording before to "underneath the street intersection between..." to help make that more explicit. Those are the official street names used in English (originating from Malay), so replacing with a translation isn't appropriate. Would a wiktionary link help?
what does Toa Payoh mean?
- It is a place name; the article for that has been linked, and does discuss its etymology. The station being named for the area it serves is unremarkable and I don't think it really merits further elaboration.
split this into two ideas
- Agreed and done.
- – 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your second reply: yes, a Wiktionary link will be very helpful, as it's not a particularly common term in most of the English-speaking world. As for what Toa Payoh means, I would like to know the nominator's opinion on including etymology. While it may seem evident that the station is named after the planning area, other articles about MRT stations, such as Dhoby Ghaut, do explain the station's etymology in the article itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
History
- "Toa Payoh station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in May 1982." - This should probably be "the early plans of the MRT network, published in May 1982".
- "as part of the Phase I MRT segment" - Should this be "as part of the Phase I segment of the MRT"?
- "This segment was given priority as it passes through areas" - There is a tense mismatch; it should probably be "passed through areas".
- "The line aimed to relieve the traffic congestion on the Thomson–Sembawang road corridor." - Relieving congestion specifically on that road, or on a general corridor?
- "the Toa Payoh and Novena station" - The word "stations" should be plural.
- "the Toa Payoh Central bus terminal was relocated to an adjacent site" - Was this because the bus station was right above the MRT station site?
- "beginning of the MRT network construction" - I suggest "beginning of the construction of the MRT network".
- "Due to various soil conditions, " - This was announced after the topping-out?
- "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open earlier on 7 November" - First, I would delete "later". Second, instead of saying "the section would open earlier on 7 November", I would say "the section's opening date was rescheduled to 7 November" (the reader presumably already knows that 7 November is an earlier date than early 1988).
- "the station was opened for a preview" - I'd say something like "the station hosted a preview"
- "Many expressed excitement and curiosity, with plenty of others planning to take the MRT ride on the system's debut" - You may want to say which news source reported this. Otherwise it may be seen as a bit irrelevant
- "was the most visited out of the opened stations" - This wording is a bit weird. I'd say "was the most visited station on the newly completed line" or something like that.
- "backed and commissioned the planning" - I'd also rephrase "backed" as it's a bit vague. For example, if Cheong funded the project, say "funded". If he championed the construction of the MRT system, say something like "advocated for".
- "inaugurated the start of MRT operations" - This phrasing is a bit redundant; one would not inaugurate the end of something. I'd say "inaugurated MRT operations" or, even better, "started MRT operations".
- "On the day itself" - I'd also get rid of "itself" since the reflexive pronoun isn't used like that.
- "flood prevention measures at this station, alongside 11 other MRT stations" - Do you know what types of measures? Also, I suggest "along with" rather than "alongside".
More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot about this. I will add more comments in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Station details
- "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) between the Braddell and Novena stations." - The current sentence makes it sound like Toa Payoh serves the NSL, which only runs between Braddell and Novena. I'd separate the sentence into two ideas, e.g. "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) and is between the Braddell and Novena stations on that line."
- "Being part of the NSL, the station is operated by SMRT Trains" - Do you mean that SMRT operates the NSL and all stations on that line? If so, you should say that directly.
- "The station is also situated" - The word "situated" is unnecessary.
- "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with ‘Toa’ meaning ‘big’ and ‘Payoh’ meaning ‘swamp’), a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens in the area" - A couple issues here:
- This is a long sentence. I would recommend splitting this into two sentences or, at the very least, adding a semicolon between the two parts of the sentence.
- I think "in the area" is also repetitive; I'd say something like "there". E.g.: "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with 'Toa' meaning 'big' and 'Payoh' meaning 'swamp'); the name is a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens there".
- "The station has two underground levels: the conourse at the upper level and the platforms at the lower level" - The word "concourse" is misspelled. Additionally, you can simplify this by saying "The station has two underground levels: the concourse above and the platforms below." Or "The station is underground, with a concourse on the upper level and the platforms on the lower level".
- "has the island platform arrangement" - This can be simplified to "has an island platform".
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius Addressed issues above. ZKang123 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Toa Payoh is also one of the few stations on the initial network to have a lofty ceiling." - How so? How many metres high does a ceiling have to be in order to be considered "lofty"? If you mean "double-height ceiling", that may make more sense.
- Similarly, do you know what sizes of crowds the station is supposed to accommodate.
- "reflected on the pillars and canopies" - Unless it's literally reflective, you can just remove the word "reflected", e.g. "Toa Payoh station uses a bright yellow colour scheme for its pillars and canopies".
- "features a 'rainbow dressing'" - It may be better to specify that this is a mural when you first mention it.
- "the station features The Toa Payoh Story" - The word "features" was used in the previous paragraph. I would reword it to something different. e.g. "contains"
- "this mural intends to tie the area's significance to major milestones in Singapore's history." - I think it is better to say "the artists intended for the mural to tie the area's significance to major milestones in Singapore's history".
- That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- They (LTA or MRTC) haven't really specified much about the height. And it also isn't clear how many people the station is supposed to accomodate.
Addressed other points raised. ZKang123 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)- Support - Looks good to me. It's all right if you couldn't find stats about the height or crowds; I just thought these facts would benefit from some elaboration. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- I see some inconsistencies in the formatting. You give a domain name for the work parameter in [2], [16] and a few others, and in some of those cases you omit the publisher parameter. Any consistent approach is fine but I don't see the logic here. It's usual to only give the domain name if there's no clear name for the website, but that's rare.
[40] needs a page number in the cite.- How does [2] support the text it cites? The link is dead and the archive link only goes up to 2016, and it's not clear that that graph relates to Toa Payoh in any case.
Why is [28] cited? I don't see anything in the archived page that relates to the text it supports.
Links and reliability look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Huh didn't realise there's a source review until now!
- Addressed the publisher format, though there might be a couple few I've missed out. I recall a user remarking their preference for the publisher parameter, but I'm a bit on the fence, because other users prefer the domain name. If you think I should remove the domain name then I might do that.
- The requirement is consistency. If you want to use domain name for publisher throughout, that's fine, so long as you do it everywhere. Domain name for work everywhere would also be OK though that's probably less helpful to the reader; again you'd have to do it everywhere, for consistency. You can certainly use both publisher and work, and lots of people do, and you can have a rule such as "use work in every case; only use publisher where it's not obvious from the work", which would mean for example that "work=New York Times" would not get a publisher parameter, since the publisher is the New York Times, but "work=Billboard" would need "publisher=Penske Media Corp". The most common rule I see is to use work only, not to use publisher, and not to use domain names for the work parameter unless no website name is apparent. And in case it's not clear the rule can vary by citation type, if you want it to; books often get publishers but websites often don't. Again the key is consistency -- whatever rule you pick has to be consistently applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added page number
- Actually that's the website from which you generate the data for the passenger numbers... It's a bit complex to get the data and I could probably only cite the source and that's the website. Updated link to the new domain.
- One way to address this sort of thing is to put instructions in the citation, telling the reader what they have to enter to get to the supporting information. See [300] in Mick Jagger, for example; that says '"British album certifications – Mick Jagger". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 20 August 2019. Select albums in the Format field. Type Mick Jagger in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter. ' I believe that particular one is generated by a template but you could reproduce something along those lines manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm I'm not sure under what parameter for "Cite web" it should be in. But the instructions are as follows:
You need to be a registered DataMall subscriber to get an Account Key. Using the following API guide, you can generate the url for the passenger volume data (as per Page 23) via Postman Monitors. ZKang123 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)- If it's subscription required, then I don't think it's necessary. You could add the subscription icon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm I'm not sure under what parameter for "Cite web" it should be in. But the instructions are as follows:
- One way to address this sort of thing is to put instructions in the citation, telling the reader what they have to enter to get to the supporting information. See [300] in Mick Jagger, for example; that says '"British album certifications – Mick Jagger". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 20 August 2019. Select albums in the Format field. Type Mick Jagger in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter. ' I believe that particular one is generated by a template but you could reproduce something along those lines manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Removed citation 28.
- Addressed the publisher format, though there might be a couple few I've missed out. I recall a user remarking their preference for the publisher parameter, but I'm a bit on the fence, because other users prefer the domain name. If you think I should remove the domain name then I might do that.
- Thanks for the source review so far! ZKang123 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The consistency is the only remaining issue. A couple of questions (footnote numbers refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toa_Payoh_MRT_station&oldid=1099904261 this version):
- Still some websites using domain name: [16], [23], [28], [32], [33], [34], [36], [38], [40], [47], [48]
- No publisher on [28]
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alright fixed accordingly. Since some of the publisher parameters is the same as the website name, I removed the publisher parameters in favour of the website parameter. ZKang123 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Back to the Future
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support, watched the film a few weeks ago and never knew that it is on FAC! I think that this article shines when you reads the whole thing, and with an exception of technical stuff, there's nothing much that I can think of to improve the article further. Some copyediting by others may be helpful, which is usually done in FAC anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review
Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues. Just a few ALT issues (see):
- Missing alts for File:Michael J Fox 2020.jpg, File:Christopher Lloyd May 2015.jpg, File:Lea Thompson by Gregg Bond (2008) (cropped).jpg and File:Crispin Glover 2012 Shankbone.JPG
Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thanks ZKang123 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
- "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
- "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
- " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
- "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
- "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
- Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
- "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
- "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
- "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
- "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
- "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
- That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Kusma
This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:
- "Most reviewers agreed the film was almost the year's most entertaining, which offered a return to a focus on storytelling, despite Paul Attanasio considering some aspects to be "mechanically" designed to create the broadest audience appeal." This is a bit convoluted, and it seems to me that many reviewers actually did consider the film to be the year's most entertaining. Maslin in the NY Times writes "easily the most sustained and entertaining of this summer's adventure fables", for example. Can you re-word this?
More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lead and post-production section: "more time in theaters" isn't accurate; what is meant is more times during the peak summer season.
- Lead: I'd prefer "three Saturn awards" as "an Academy Award, Saturn Awards, and a Hugo Award" reads a bit odd.
- Cast: Why no cite for Fox/Marty? (for completeness, as the others all have cites)
- Comma before respectively? (Not sure)
- Conception and writing: "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on 1985, making it more futuristic" I don't know who "it" is here: 1985 or the movie?
- Some of the Casting section is actually about filming, but it seems to work OK.
- Filming with Stoltz: " he and Zemeckis collaborated on Romancing the Stone" had collaborated?
- Special effects: "Optical department" looks odd; optical department or Optical Department (as in the source)?
- Delorean: "The time machine was conceived " consider adding originally for clarity?
- Art direction and makeup: "Actual brand names, such as Texaco were" Curious whether this would work better with zero or with two commas? (Not a native speaker so ignore me if I am wrong)
- Context "avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films" is that a thing?
- Box office: "ahead of Independence Day holiday weekend" add the?
- "the western Pale Rider" Western?
- Cultural influences: "$78,500 was crowdfunded" when was that?
- Sequel: do we know when they changed their mind about making a sequel? The current prose doesn't flow well from "sequel not originally planned" to "sequel written and split in two parts".
Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ovinus
Exciting. Coordinators: are spotchecks still needed? If so I can perform them. In any case, will review over the next week or so since it's a long one. Ovinus (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ovinus, spot checks are not required, Darkwarriorblake being something of an FAC veteran. But if you felt moved to do some, there never go amiss. The best way to attract the attention of the coordinators is to use {{@FAC}}. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I honestly have very few comments so far.
- "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on the future, making 1985 more futuristic, but every person who read the script hated the idea." I'm not sure if "changes to 1955" makes sense. I would clarify "Marty's changes to". Also what does "making 1985 more futuristic" mean? As in, much more technologically advanced than it was in real life?
- With "between 1955 and 1985", maybe "between 1955 and 1985 culture" or something, since I think that's the point you're trying to make
- I've made some changes here. The futurstic aspect is difficult because sources just say "futuristic" which I interpret as years ahead of its time, but I can't say with detail what changes they made. As a guess, I would say that 1985 would've been like the 2015 they envisioned for Back to the Future. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ippantekina
- "A development deal was secured" with whom?
- "delayed production and the film's release date but, following highly successful test screenings, the date was brought forward to July 3, 1985" wordy
- Link critics to film criticism
- "Critics praised the story, comedy" but the first sentence does not introduce it as a comedy
- "was also a global success" WP:PEACOCK
- "is now considered to be" by whom?
This is gonna be a long read... More to follow. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Ding-Dong," pinging Ovinus and Ippantekina Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
More comments... Do respond to me where you find inexplicable.
- "but every person who read the script hated the idea" pretty harsh; the Guardian interview wrote "our script readers had problems with that", so something like "took issue with" should suffice
- "The pair knew the time travel had to be an accident" how did they "know" that? On what grounds.. This bit is confusing
- "They knew it had to be Lorraine who stopped the relationship" again with the verb "know"; I get what this means, but how could they "know" something before it materialized? "believed" or "conceived" would be more appropriate
- "but he did not think it would impress others" who are "others"? The audience, the critics, the executives...?
- I am not sure if we need to list every original contender for the roles
- Some bits of info sound like trivia i.e. "Actresses Kyra Sedgwick and Jill Schoelen were also considered; Schoelen was told she looked too "exotic" and not All-American enough" then what? Ippantekina (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some changes as requested Ippantekina, with the almost-cast, I personally find the alternatives fascinating in an alternate history aspect of what we could have had, and ultimately if you don't include them, you will be constantly fighting a battle with people who do add them. You can cut the number down but where do you draw the line? Similarly, the Jill Schoelen thing, I don't consider it trivia, it's on par with Melora Hardin being rejected for making Fox look too short, and IMO if you read it, too "exotic and not All-American enough," comes across as pretty racist. Too exotic is basically too ethnic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's justified. Thanks! Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some changes as requested Ippantekina, with the almost-cast, I personally find the alternatives fascinating in an alternate history aspect of what we could have had, and ultimately if you don't include them, you will be constantly fighting a battle with people who do add them. You can cut the number down but where do you draw the line? Similarly, the Jill Schoelen thing, I don't consider it trivia, it's on par with Melora Hardin being rejected for making Fox look too short, and IMO if you read it, too "exotic and not All-American enough," comes across as pretty racist. Too exotic is basically too ethnic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Several filmed but deleted scenes include" could just be "Deleted scenes include.."
- Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ippantekina and Ovinus: - Do you have any objections to promotion, or have your comments been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I totally forgot about this again. I read the first third of the article with no objections, but I can't give a support since I haven't read the full thing. Ovinus (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- So far I have no objection, but please bare with me until I have finished reading the full thing. Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- Not required, but you might consider adding chapter page numbers to Schneider and Ní Fhlainn (2014).
You're missing the website parameter in [145].For [277] you're using {{cite MC}}, which outputs a publisher parameter; this is inconsistent with your other web citations which don't use publisher. I'm not going to hold up a pass for this, but you might consider asking whoever maintains that citation template to add an option to exclude publisher. FAC requires consistency and it would be best if templates like that allowed you to match your preferred citation style.- What makes the following reliable sources?
slashfilm.com [15] and [187]backtothefuture.com [103], [168], [227]. I can't tell if this is a fan site or something with official backing.
Do you need the New York Post source for [165]? It's not a good source in general and you have it bundled so I can't tell if you really need it.- [138] seems to lead to different results when you click on the original and the archived link. I don't understand the non-archived link -- it seems to show a dramatically lower total for Back to the Future.
I'll check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Links:
I see you mostly archive NY Times links to archive.org, but [162] is archived to archive.today, and the link leads to archive.ph and a server error.The archive link for [188] is not working.[236] leads to what looks like an insecure usurped site for the main link, which would be OK if the archive link were working. The archive link leads to a page that's so badly laid out (as often happens with archive.org pages) that I can't tell if it retains the information you are citing.The archive link for [267] is not working.The archive link for [269] is not working.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ní Fhlain seems to have page numbers? The Schneider book is an e-book without page numbers so I only have the section unfortunately.
- I meant that in the "Works cited" section some editors add the page range of the chapter. Completely optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- SlashFilm does have a clear editorial and staff page here and a page detailing policies including ownership here which is run by Static Media and backed by Greycroft, BDMI, Lerer Hippeau, and Mark Cuban.
- Backtothefuture.com is the official website, the social media accounts Twitter and Facebook link back to it, although the INstagram links to backtothefuture.events, which is the same website and LLC running it but the dedicated events page. There are separate LinkedIn pages for the company running it and Backtothefuture.com which indicates it was a fan site until 1995 and became the official site thereafter.
- Removed the NYPost ref
- I'v marked 138 as dead. The archive figure is correct, since BOM changed its website and made some things paywalled sometimes figures (which seem to be automatically calculated) are not always accurate on every page.
- 162 worked for me but looking at it the screenshot was not the full page due to the "subscribe" thing, so I've replaced that with Archive.org
- 188, 267 and 269 work for me? Took longer than usual but they did load. Maybe archive.org was down? 236 is the same, it does work, the formatting is terrible, but Back to the Future is there among I think 10 films total on page 2 covering 100 films.
- made other incidental requested changes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ní Fhlain seems to have page numbers? The Schneider book is an e-book without page numbers so I only have the section unfortunately.
I've struck everything except 138. I can see that BOM ought to be treated as a reliable source, but if you're saying they now are producing errors I'm not clear how we can rely on the older numbers either. How can we get comfortable with the accuracy of the older numbers if they're no longer supported by the site? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily an error, looking at the live site it looks like the issue is that they've added individual figures for like 7 countries, and so it's only automatically counting those figures and churning out $11 million which BTTF obviously earned significantly more than internationally. The BOM reference is backed up by the Gaines reference which does give the same figure of $170.5. The only alternative is The Numbers, but that's even worse because it just adds every release on top of the figure, so if a film has had 5 re-releases over the decades it just adds them to the total figure and doesn't differentiate between releases, so I think the BOM archive and Gaines Reference are the most solid option. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page seems to show only five non-US markets which I agree must be an underestimate. Unfortunately there's no archive.org copy of that page. Do you mean Gaines says $170.5M for overseas? If so let's drop the BOM ref for overseas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done Mike_Christie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- That does it. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done Mike_Christie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page seems to show only five non-US markets which I agree must be an underestimate. Unfortunately there's no archive.org copy of that page. Do you mean Gaines says $170.5M for overseas? If so let's drop the BOM ref for overseas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily an error, looking at the live site it looks like the issue is that they've added individual figures for like 7 countries, and so it's only automatically counting those figures and churning out $11 million which BTTF obviously earned significantly more than internationally. The BOM reference is backed up by the Gaines reference which does give the same figure of $170.5. The only alternative is The Numbers, but that's even worse because it just adds every release on top of the figure, so if a film has had 5 re-releases over the decades it just adds them to the total figure and doesn't differentiate between releases, so I think the BOM archive and Gaines Reference are the most solid option. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
BTS
- Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk), Wehwalt (talk), and Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the contemporary music group BTS from South Korea. It is a co-nomination with Wehwalt and a renewed FAC with updated text and sources. The previous successful GAN nomination was done as a co-nomination with Btspurplegalaxy who is also on the top 10 editor list for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Similar reasons as last time, I don't feel my concerns were fully addressed. The sourcing can still be improved with the books that are now minimally cited; journal articles I brought up were not included at all. Some of the citations now lack page numbers, eg. " John Lie, "BTS, the Highest Stage of K-pop". In Youna Kim, Ed. The Soft Power of the Korean Wave. "Chapter 7". Routledge Press. 2022." I don't know exactly how many pages there are in a chapter, but this is not ideal for verifiability. Another book is listed in bibliography and cited using sfn referencing, so I would cite all book sources the same way for consistency. The nominator is the author of 4.7% of the article, so concern about how he can guarantee the accuracy of the remaining 95% remains. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- You seemed to say it was "an improvement" on your talk page here: [30]. Also, all three of the editors listed as nominators are listed by Wikitools on the top 10 list of editors for "authorship" out of over 1500 editors for the article: Wehwalt is #7, Ernest is #6, and Btspurple is #4. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The page numbers in the Soft Power book have now been added, and I'll go through the refs and see what can be done. More learned sources have been added. Again, I'll do more on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the sources cited in the opposes in the two FACs are now included, as well as other scholarly sources. Much of the article is basically about facts, the group's activities in the years since its founding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe we have, I believe, addressed your concerns. A number of scholarly sources are now used, sfn has been adopted for the book and article sources where it was not present, and I'm assured by ErnestKrause that the sources (which were gone through when the article was pared down from the sprawling mess it was) do reflect the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly been asked to change my oppose, but sourcing issues remain in the article such as citing self-published medium and forbes contributors. Some citations are broken with the message "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". The question of how people who wrote a minority of the article have verified the sourcing and accuracy of the remaining 90 percent or so remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment about authorship appears not to know about the long edit history of the BTS article. Previous editors from the last 10 years had bloated the article to over 400Kb in size. Those 'authors' of the article made a sprawling mess of the old version of the BTS article, and GAN was successfull only because the article went through an extensive bulking down process to get it through a successful GAN. You appear to keep wanting to give credit to the old previous editors who caused it to become bloated at over 400Kb in size last year which detracted from the article being able to get to GAN. The GAN succeeded due to bulking down the article and not super-adding text to a article that was already over 400Kb.
- Your comment about Forbes must refer to the one citation to Forbes in the entire article to document the release of their song "Dynamite". That citation is written by a Forbes staff member which is acceptable to Wikipedia policy; only non-staff Forbes article are excluded by Wikipedia policy. If you see any SPS problems in the article, then state them by name since the article has had an extensive review of citations at its successfull GAN.
- The Harv-cite error you mention appears only for the one book by Kim Young which was added by a previous editor, and which Wehwalt is in the process of converting to sfn; it is already in the sfn section of the Bibliography. The print-out of the article on my screen shows no other Harv-cite issues at this time. If you see any other Harv-cite issues, then you can them list them here, since none of them are coming up on my screen print-out at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- There were several sfn errors, but I've gone through everything now and they're fixed. As for the assurances of accuracy, there's ErnestKrause's assurances on this front and I think both ErnestKrause's comments just above and FrB.TG's just below respond to that. At this point, this seems to be an oppose where everything either has been addressed or (in the case of the concern about accuracy, there's nothing that can, or so far as I can tell, should, be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly been asked to change my oppose, but sourcing issues remain in the article such as citing self-published medium and forbes contributors. Some citations are broken with the message "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". The question of how people who wrote a minority of the article have verified the sourcing and accuracy of the remaining 90 percent or so remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe we have, I believe, addressed your concerns. A number of scholarly sources are now used, sfn has been adopted for the book and article sources where it was not present, and I'm assured by ErnestKrause that the sources (which were gone through when the article was pared down from the sprawling mess it was) do reflect the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the sources cited in the opposes in the two FACs are now included, as well as other scholarly sources. Much of the article is basically about facts, the group's activities in the years since its founding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Buidhe, could I confirm that your oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes certainly I won't withdraw it unless the article gets a more thorough spot checking then it appears to have so far. It should be required due to first time nomination, no? (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please let us know if there is anything else you think we could improve on, since I feel that all of your concerns have been addressed in detail. We want for this article to be top-notch, and that has contributed to our rapid and efficient improvements. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also feel the specific grounds for oppose were all addressed, as were the further comments regarding sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Article appears to have been fully addressed with an extensive source check done for this renomination and has the support from several reviewing FAC editors who have participated. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes certainly I won't withdraw it unless the article gets a more thorough spot checking then it appears to have so far. It should be required due to first time nomination, no? (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
Resolved comments from FrB.TG
|
---|
The additions of academic sources have definitely improved the article. I partially disagree with the oppose above, i.e. with the part that the nominators not being major authors of the article could mean there are unsupported/misinterpreted claims there. Unless a spot-checker specifically identifies issues on this front, it's just an assumption that these exist. (Note I'm not saying that these don't exist, but only saying the possible issues would first need to be confirmed to warrant an oppose on that ground.) Some of my comments regarding sourcing can be found here on my talk page. My comments here will mostly focus on the prose and MoS issues.
Down to the end of 2014–2017: Mainstream and international breakthrough. This should keep you busy for a while. I'll return with more comments later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I have made several edits here for MoS fixes, ref. formatting and minor copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
- Support My comments were dealt with in a speedy manner by the three nominators. My review was mostly based on prose and MoS concerns, but I also had some involvement with the sourcing before the renomination. With K. Peake's thorough source review, I am confident that it meets the sourcing criteria as well. I understand Buidhe's concern for sources-to-text accuracy but very few spot-checks of my own didn't show anything to be worried about; please note this is not a pass on spot-checking and would have to be conducted more thoroughly (should it be requested). FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments by K. Peake
Resolved comments from K. Peake
|
---|
Note: All "platinum", "gold, and "silver" adjectives in prose and narrative have been changed to lower case only throughtout the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Source reviewSource review
Part two
--K. Peake 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
|
- Coordinator comment - at about three weeks in with no strong movement towards a consensus to promote, this nomination is liable to be archived within three or so days unless substantial progress is made. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Image review - pass
- File:BTS during a White House press conference May 31, 2022 (cropped).jpg - Consider adding personality rights warning - US Federal government image - PD - verified - okay
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:Bangtan Boys at the Incheon Music Center in September 2013 02.jpg - CC 4.0 image - verified by a Commons admin - but I cannot verify. Source link is now broken - consider adding archive link - consider adding personality rights warning - probably okay
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:BTS win first Daesang (Grand Prize) at Melon Music Awards, 19 November 2016.jpg - CC 4.0 image - verified by a Commons admin - but I cannot verify - probably okay
- File:Bangtan Boys at KCON France 2016.jpg = Flickr CC 2.0 image - okay
- File:170529 BTS at a press conference for the BBMAs (3).png - Consider adding personality rights warning - Youtube CC 4.0 image - verified - okay
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:Troubadour 02.jpg - CC 0 image craeted by a Wikipedian. No Freedom of Panorama in the US but okay to take photos of buildings from a public place - okay
- File:Le Citi Field.jpg - CC 3.0 image craeted by a Wikipedian. No Freedom of Panorama in the US but okay to take photos of buildings from a public place - okay
- File:BTS at 2017 American Music Awards in Los Angeles, 19 November 2017 02.jpg - Korean OG licence - verified -okay
- File:BTS performing at the Korea-France Friendship Concert, Paris Treasure Art Theater, 14 October 2018.jpg - Korean OG licence - verified -okay
- File:BTS Love Yourself - Speak Yourself tour at Rose Bowl, Pasadena (California), 4 May 2019 04.jpg - CC 3.0 licence - verified okay by Commons admin but site has been taken down - probably okay
- I added the archive link Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:180524 BTS at a press conference for Love Yourself Tear (3).png - the copyright holder has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive - permission for use cannot be revoked by the owner once given - probably okay
- File:BTS at American Music Awards November 21, 2021.jpg - Consider adding personality rights warning - CC 3.0 image - verified - okay
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:190601 Jin Wembley Stadium Day 1 Ay-Oh Chant.webm - CC 3.0 image - verified - okay
- File:BTS with President Biden at the White House for 2022 AAPI Heritage Month on May 31, 2022.jpg - Consider adding personality rights warning - US Federal government image - PD - verified - okay
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest adding alt text to all the images for accessibility per MOS:ACCIM. See MOS:ALT for examples. -- EN-Jungwon 14:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments by Hawkeye7
I don't know a thing about K-Pop and don't even know the difference between a vocalist and a rapper. But while I'm here:
- References required for the Concert toours section
- Cites added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Otherwise looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ippantekina
I have not thoroughly examine the article. Here are some comments from my first impression:
- Kudos to the scholarly sources!
- Remove Metro per WP:RSP.
- Removed and placed with Billboard source. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 4:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if this is necessary:
In the United Kingdom, BTS is the first Korean group to receive BPI certification, and holds seven silver singles,[398] one gold single,[399] one platinum single,[400] seven silver album certifications,[401] and three gold album certifications.[402]"
the claim "the first Korean group to receive BPI certification is unsourced, and the listing of all certifications appears as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The same goes to the specific listing of RIAA certs; I suggest adding only the overalls (i.e. xx million digital singles certified)
- Use {{lang}} to correctly render foreign-language names
- Use
|script-title=ko:
(or|script-title=ja:
) in {{cite web}} to correctly render foreign-language website titles
- I've added them all. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I must say the prose needs thorough fine-tuning
-
- The language is not up to standards at some places, i.e. how do you define "Moderate success" or "Worldwide recognition"?
with UNICEF celebrating its success
how successful was the campaign? Was it measurable/quantifiable?and attracted many new fans
WP:PEACOCK.This demonstrated the growing power of the band's fanbase
POV; the number speaks for itself."a dual exploration of the group's electro-pop and hip-hop leanings"
this can be safely paraphrased without quotation marks. Such language may be appropriate for a GA, but not for an FA.
- I've gone through it and taken out anything that might be construed as peacocky, in particular changing the mentions you've pointed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Three subsections for a two-to-three-year chunk are a lot! I know they have been a smash and broken numerous records, but still, remove whatever can be removed and use summary style.
- The article is a little sprawling and some bits of information can be safely excluded—i.e.
In April, BTS became the first South Korean artist to sell more than 20 million albums cumulatively ... making them the best-selling artist in South Korean history.
(the 32.7 million figure in the Awards section is enough) or"Dynamite" remained at number two, making BTS the fourth group (after the Beatles, Bee Gees, and OutKast) to simultaneously occupy the top two spots on the Hot 100
(if they are the fourth group to achieve this feat it can be left in the song article). Information on the evolution of themes/styles can be grouped altogether in the "Artistry" section.
- The language is not up to standards at some places, i.e. how do you define "Moderate success" or "Worldwide recognition"?
— Ippantekina (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Comment by CactiStaccingCrane
OpposeComment: Sorry for being harsh, but I have some big concerns about BTS#Fandom's dueness and without it being addressed, I don't feel comfortable this article getting a FA status. To be very blunt, I feel that the section is too promotional, with phrases such as the fandom regularly embraces activism on charitable causes and socio-political issues, charitable contributions, non-hierarchical collective intelligence that transcend cultural and national borders or extending the band's message of positivity into the world. I do think that this section should be kept, but completely rewritten in order to comply with neutrality and somewhat shorten to comply our due proportions policy. Otherwise, great work on BTS, and I'm happy to struck my oppose once my concern is addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I"ve cut some. But the fandom is not puffing, this part of the article is very heavily supported by scholarly sources. I've been involved in music fandom in my time, and the fans' aspirations were heavily focused on the music and on the band members. This is different. To cite from the scholarly sources, Chang and Park, p. 268, "On the whole, we find that the fandoms, constituted through the digital intimacies of cyberspace, gradually proceed from the realm of personal relations and individual experience to an expanding sympathy with social, and even political, issues that organically connect to the experiences of BTS and ARMY members. A moving target, as this living phenomenon has extended in real time to the global stage, it has started to reveal its cultural and social complexity and potential to both reflect and drive social change." Or Lee and Kao, p. 81: " BTS ARMY is extremely well-organized and was able to help motivate BTS to issue a statement and donate funds. In fact, the effectiveness of the fandom has been repeatedly demonstrated in their ardent support of BTS, but in this situation, they prompted BTS to act on a political issue. Most recently, the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes and negative bias incidents due to COVID-19 in the U.S. and elsewhere has led to the hashtag #stopasianhate and #stopAAPIhate. In March 2021, BTS released a statement utilizing the above hashtags to condemn racism against Asian Americans,and stated that they had also experienced racism as Asians when traveling outside of Korea. Their statements resonated with fans across the world and with Asian Americans, as well as Asians in other Western countries.The political power of the BTS ARMY is important for K-pop itself because it showsthe possible trajectory of K-pop as a global cultural phenomenon." It isn't puffing, it's a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- CactiStaccingCrane, I'd be grateful if you'd have another look at this and perhaps review the sources we used, most of which are online.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Struck my oppose. The section is much better than before without the PR-sounding "non-hierarchical collective intelligence that transcend cultural and national borders" phrase. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Lil-Unique1
Resolved comments from Lil-unqiue1
|
---|
These are the initial comments from me. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
|
- Support from me. Happy that this article is written to a good standard. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from TheSandDoctor
I have given this a readthrough and I am satisfied that the prose meets the standards becoming of a featured article. Well done, ErnestKrause, Wehwalt, and Btspurplegalaxy! --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Heartfox
- In August 2014, BTS released their first Korean studio album Dark & Wild" — nothing in the ref supports the release date or that it was their first Korean studio album.
- "t was supported by two singles: "Danger" — not supported by ref
- "to a crowd of 6,500 fans" — not supported by ref
Three unsourced facts in one paragraph is concerning. Heartfox (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've added in extra citations for each of the items you have listed above. The section you've been reading was recently trimmed for size at the request of other editors and I have restored those citations and done some rewrites. The tour you ask about was a large success for BTS in 2014-2015. Ready for next set of edit requests when you have time to add them here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from AJona1992
- Overuse of "debuting" in the lead as a means of BTS coming into fruition in the music market. As well as the usage of "numerous" seems WP:PEACOCKish. Other examples include "youth" (mainstream section), and lead single throughout the article
- I've changed "numerous" and some of the uses of "debut" but really that's the proper term. Regarding youth, I've changed a couple of examples, but that is the accepted term for their trilogy. I don't understand the issue with lead single, it's an accepted term.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a word is a proper term doesn't excuse it from being overly used. I have no issue with "lead single", the issue is reading it in every sentence. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- What other terminology could be used? I cannot possibly think of a better word to use than that one. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- There aren't any, all I was saying is that using "lead single" in every sentence is redundant after a few usages. You don't need to say that a particular song was released first in every mention of an album; the leadoff single, it, etc., or quite frankly just mentioning the song following the mention of an album establishes the song was released first, why would you start off with a song release that wasn't its lead in the first place? – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- What other terminology could be used? I cannot possibly think of a better word to use than that one. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a word is a proper term doesn't excuse it from being overly used. I have no issue with "lead single", the issue is reading it in every sentence. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed "numerous" and some of the uses of "debut" but really that's the proper term. Regarding youth, I've changed a couple of examples, but that is the accepted term for their trilogy. I don't understand the issue with lead single, it's an accepted term.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the first instance of US not the United States?
- What was the certification from the RIAA?
- The article states it as: "They became the first Korean ensemble to receive a certification from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for their single "Mic Drop", as well as the first act from South Korea to top the Billboard 200 with their studio album Love Yourself: Tear (2018). BTS became one of the few groups since the Beatles with four US number-one albums in less than two years, and Love Yourself: Answer (2018) was the first Korean album certified platinum by the RIAA." ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- And what is that certification? The issue still stands. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Platinum certification. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- When did the Beatles and Justin Timberlake accomplish said feats?
- That information is included in the body of the article. The lead is intended as a summary, and not everything can appear in a summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- A lead should be a good summarization of the article, for sure. These happen to be feats previously accomplished by other artists, you've only provided who last did it and not when they did it. If it is that important to discuss that in the lead, then it is important for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand when it last was accomplished, not just who. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the lead section, I have added the years when the feats were accomplished. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- A lead should be a good summarization of the article, for sure. These happen to be feats previously accomplished by other artists, you've only provided who last did it and not when they did it. If it is that important to discuss that in the lead, then it is important for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand when it last was accomplished, not just who. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That information is included in the body of the article. The lead is intended as a summary, and not everything can appear in a summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- "for their contributions to spreading Korean culture" shouldn't it be "for their contributions in spreading"?
- "The change in plan was because album sales were suffering across the music industry," → "Following dwindling album sales in the music market in the country,"
- There are a few instance in my initial read of the article where I've found awakward wording: "as well for as for placing" (2010-2014), "was restarted on June 6, 2015 in Malaysia and toured Australia," (2014-2017),
- Is "industry insiders" the same thing as music executives?
- "held their first fan meeting in Seoul" what is the importance of this sentence?
- Given the importance that BTS fandom would take on, including the interaction with the band, it's not out of line, I hope, to trace the roots of that relationship a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- "World Digital Songs Chart" → "World Digital Song Sales chart"
- Instance of overlinking: Red Bullet Tour, Oricon Albums Chart,
- Why is the World Albums chart linked in its second appearance in the article body and not the first?
- "eight of the tracks reached" would prefer to use impacted since you didn't mention their peaks
- Changed wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- What was the peak of their first appearance on the Billboard 200?
- The citations states: "Pt. 2 also hit new peaks by hitting No. 1 on both Heatseekers Albums (where the band had previously topped out at No. 6 with The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Pt. 1) and World Albums (where Pt. 1 peaked at No. 2)." If that's useful then it may be added if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- What was the commercial and critical reception of Youth? You've only mentioned it as a release prior to Wings.
- Added two sentences about its commercial performance with citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Pre-orders of it broke the record for most albums sold in a month" in which market?
- "in South Korea" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Billboard is a US music chart, why constantly add US in every mention of their charts?
- I've removed about a dozen of these; they should now be removed from the article. The over 100 cites to Billboard tended not to use US when used. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Bubbling Under Hot 100 is a 25-song extension of the Hot 100 and readers unfamiliar with music charts published by Billboard will not understand that. For instance, if the song peaked at number two, without explaining the rules of the Bubbling Under Hot 100, will read as the song peaked at number two and not number 102. Also, what was the peak? I keep reading chart entry for both albums and songs and not their peak performance. Unless their chart entry was notable and Billboard provided an analyst on that, then peak positions should take precedence over just saying "X and Y entered the chart".
- That source is only used in one place in this article. Changing performance description with other citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Saying "high demand" is unnecessary as "demand" suffices.
- "achieving the highest monthly sales in the Gaon Album Chart's history" source doesn't say that.
- Rewrite the performance of the EP with replacement chart performance. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- "making them the first K-pop boy band to have one" one what?
- That should bring your list of edit comments up to date. REady for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the article's been put through the wringer, and has come a long way since the start of this FAC. I'd suggest we're approaching consensus to promote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AJona1992, are there further comments to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild Ajona1992 appears to have several GA reviews on hold on her Talk page for several days now, and appears to be a Wikipbreak at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "their first number one hit" remove "hit" per WP:PEACOCK, saying it reached atop the chart illustrates its success.
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "a remake of Seo Taiji 1995 "Come Back Home"" → "a remake of Seo Taiji's "Come Back Home" (1995)"
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "making them the first K-pop boy band to have one → "making them the first K-pop boy band to do so"
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "well-being among children and young people" aren't they the same thing? just ax children
- There is an italicization issue in the second para of the 2018-2020 section.
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "started at number one its first week" change to debuted
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again remove "hit" the two times it is mentioned in the same para
- "breaking the chart's all-time monthly record again" → needs polishing, there are better ways to rephrase that sentence.
- "their highest US sales week in the country to that point." which was?
- "later became the first" → remove "later", you already mentioned the date when it was certified. Also, remove all "later" as each instance of it is unnecessary; including mentions in Map of the Soul: Persona (also replace "ever" with "all-time"), the soundtrack, "Map of the Soul: Persona, stadium world tour and BTS World" section,
- "certified units." → remove certified don't need to keep saying it, especially in the same sentence, and while you're at it, please remove the extra period.
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "the first act from South Korea to appear." → this sentence is not finished
- "the first soundtrack album" → It is my understanding that a soundtrack is an album, so why is "album" mentioned? Also in the same sentence "since Gaon implemented it in 2018", implemented what? The soundtrack or was it a rule change?
- "crossed 1,000,000 copies," → change to one million, and the second time it is mentioned
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "marking the first time a Korean artist achieved a million shipments for a single in Japan, and setting a record" → it is implied that it is a record if you say "marking the first time"
- "and rose up 80 places in the following week to number one" → I can tell you guys love to overexplain things. Just say it peaked at number one the following week, rising from number 80 to number one isn't college-level calculus.
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- "On August 8, 2019, "Lights" received Million certification from the RIAJ" → missing a word here
- "For the final stop of their record-breaking" → what record did it break? attendance, number of shows, etc.
- "became the first artists in history" → another example of overexplaining, remove "in history"
- "also known as the Pop Songs chart," → redundant
- remove the overlinking of "On (song)"
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- "on the genre-specific chart" → redundant
- "On November 30, "Life Goes On" debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 char" → why are we learning about its chart performance two sentences after you talked about it being released?
- "in just three months" → bias, remove
- Just cut there and in one other spot ("just nine days")
- "since the Beatles in 1964 to do so." → awkward English
removed the "to do so" Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Remove "hits"
- "Billboard Singles Chart" → there are over 100 Billboard singles charts, specify.
- "coming at number one," → needs to be fixed
- "YouTube channel on April 17, this time" → remove "this time"
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Remove "hits"
- "released the collaboration single" → yet another example of overexplaining, remove.
- Overlinking of 64th annual Grammy Awards
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- What does the author mean by "black music"? Influences of music performed by black musicians or genres predominately performed by black artists?
- That would be correct. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I have from my read of the article. Best – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overlinking of R&B
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pipe issue with ballades
- "in youth, anxieties of school-age youth, and mental health in youth culture." → fix repetition
- "Early songs," → is a term used by fans, it needs to be encyclopedic. Remove since you wrote that those songs were from their trilogy.
- "the youngest ever recipients" → remove "ever"
- Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire second para of "Endorsements and awards" is just a list of contributions that were already stated elsewhere in the article body and should be removed.
- Not every award has been stated, and it's useful for the reader to have the statistics in one place.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's why List of awards and nominations received by BTS exists. Remove the awards already stated elsewhere in the article and keep the ones not mentioned. – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not every award has been stated, and it's useful for the reader to have the statistics in one place.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The filmography section is supposed to be what? a definition of what a filmography is?
- Listed some of their content Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Spot check
Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'll have to skip anything in Korean. I've asked for supporting text from the offline sources in a couple of cases.
- [15] OK.
- [35] and [36] are the citations for "The EP was supported by two singles: "Boy in Luv" (Korean: 상남자; RR: Sang-namja) and "Just One Day" (Korean: 하루만; RR: Haruman)." The citations show those singles exist, and one of them mentions Skool Luv Affair, but what does it mean to say these singles "supported" the EP? A single from an album supports that album; were these singles also tracks on the EP? If so this is OK.
- Yes, the sources are okay, as the singles mentioned are featured on the album. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- [51] covers "BTS experimented with other styles of music besides hip hop in The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 1, released in 2015."; can you quote the passage in Kim that supports this?
- [78] covers "moving over 1.5 million copies in South Korea that year and becoming the best-selling album in Gaon Album Chart history"; I see support for the second half of this but not for 1.5 million copies that year.
- [98] OK.
- [103] OK.
- [130] and [131] OK.
- [176] covers "All three albums of the Love Yourself series have sold more than 2 million copies each in South Korea. Love Yourself: Tear later gained silver certification by the BPI for sales in the UK, becoming their third album to do so following Love Yourself: Answer and Map of the Soul: Persona." It supports the second sentence but does not appear to support the first sentence.
- Added source to support first sentence. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- [206] OK.
- [218] covers '"Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" in 2017—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US' The cited page says the single "blasted into" the number one spot, but doesn't actually say it was its first week; I think that's OK though. However, I don't see support for the comparison to Swift or for the "first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall)" comment. I'm looking at the text in the archive copy, since I don't have a subscription; perhaps the live page has text that did not archive?
- replaced source and added an additional one supporting "first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall)" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 05:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- [254] covers "At the end of that month, BTS held their first live performances before an in-person audience since before the pandemic. The band played four sold-out shows at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles as a continuation of their Permission to Dance on Stage concert series." The review cited is, annoyingly, undated as far as I can see; not that there's any doubt about the dating, but if you could cite something that gives the date (to support "at the end of that month") it would be good. And I don't think this supports the second sentence.
- Changed the edit over to indicate the actual dates of the concert performances. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- [272] OK.
- [296] is the citation for "BTS' lyrics have also addressed topics outside youth culture specifically. The song "Am I Wrong" from Wings questioned societal apathy towards the state of current events; the lyric "We're all dogs and pigs / we become dogs because we're angry" referenced South Korean Ministry of Education official Na Hyang-wook, who was a proponent of the caste system and described the average person as "dogs and pigs". BTS performed the song on television during the 2016 South Korean political scandal that led to the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye." Two issues here: first, I don't think we can say "referenced", since the cited text specifically says it's only inferable and not made explicit by the band or the song. Second, I don't see any mention of a TV performance.
- Rewrite sentence to remove WP:NOR. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- [332] covers "In 2020, BTS were given the James A. Van Fleet Award in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the promotion of US-Korea relations; to date, they are the youngest honorees and only musicians to receive the award". I don't see support for the second half of this.
- Added a source that supports them being the youngest honorees. I've also doubled check the recipients, and BTS are not the first musicians, so I removed that part entirely. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- [338] covers "The fan community...pushes to feature BTS' music on radio stations and television"; can you quote here the text from Ju that supports this?
- "To achieve this, ARMY organised “BTSx50states,”44 a digital promotional fanbase for pushing BTS’s tracks to local radio stations ARMY even distributed online tactical manuals outlining maneuvers for cases where a station either accepted or refused their selection of music. However, ARMY did not stop here; they started campaigning online for BTS to appear and perform on American television.".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "To achieve this, ARMY organised “BTSx50states,”44 a digital promotional fanbase for pushing BTS’s tracks to local radio stations ARMY even distributed online tactical manuals outlining maneuvers for cases where a station either accepted or refused their selection of music. However, ARMY did not stop here; they started campaigning online for BTS to appear and perform on American television.".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This is 17 citations, covering 15 chunks of text in the article; of the 13 I was able to check, at least 6 seem to fail. That's an alarming rate. Can you check those citations and see if I've misread those sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- What we're going to do is go through every citation and check them, then ask for a re-check. Can we have a week?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, we've been working hard on this. Go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great; will take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, we've been working hard on this. Go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Second pass:
- [7] & [8], supporting "BTS was formed in 2010, after Big Hit Entertainment CEO Bang Si-hyuk wanted to form a hip hop group around RM (Kim Namjoon), an underground rapper who was well known on the music scene in Seoul. BTS was originally supposed to be a hip hop group, but, seeing falling album sales, he changed his plans, thinking a different path would be more marketable. He chose to vary from the usual, highly-regimented idol groups and create one where the members would be individuals rather than an ensemble, and free to express themselves." I have access to [7]; can you quote the text in Sprinkel that also supports this? As far as I can see, we need [8] to cover RM/Kim Namjoon being well-known in Seoul, and the change in plans from hip hop. [7] covers the rest.
- "““he had a particular vision for a hip-hop group. He wanted to build it around Kim Namjoon, an underground rapper who was well established on the Seoul scene before signing on with Bang in 2010. ... “Meanwhile album sales were suffering industry-wide, and thinking it more viable, Bang pivoted to a more performance-based model that brought in aspects from typical idol group"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- "““he had a particular vision for a hip-hop group. He wanted to build it around Kim Namjoon, an underground rapper who was well established on the Seoul scene before signing on with Bang in 2010. ... “Meanwhile album sales were suffering industry-wide, and thinking it more viable, Bang pivoted to a more performance-based model that brought in aspects from typical idol group"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [63]: OK.
- [84]: OK.
- [144] & [145] supports "In February 2019, BTS attended the 61st Grammy Awards for the first time as award presenters." I think this is OK but is perhaps imprecisely phrased in the text -- one could read that as meaning they had never attended the Grammys before. How about "In February 2019, BTS attended the 61st Grammy Awards as the first K-Pop award presenters"? And I didn't need to use [145] for that, so perhaps it can be cut?
- It's not wrong as that was the first time they had ever attended the Grammys. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but as far as I can see that's not what the source is saying. The source says this is the first time they've presented at the Grammys, and they're the first K-Pop presenters. I don't think it says they had never attended the Grammys, e.g. as nominees. The text in the article now could be read either way, but since the source can't be read both ways, I would change the text to unambiguously say what the source supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not wrong as that was the first time they had ever attended the Grammys. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Change wording using citation to: "this was the first time they were presenters at the Grammys." ErnestKrause (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [173]: OK.
- [203]: OK.
- [213] & [214], supporting '"Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" in 2017—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US.' I don't see the reference to Swift's single in either source.
- Add citation for performance of Taylor Swift's commercial reception. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [224], supporting "The single also topped the Billboard Global 200, becoming their second number one entry and making BTS the first artist to have multiple songs top Billboard's recently created global singles chart.": This is paywalled; can you quote the text that supports this?
- "BTS becomes the first act to have tallied multiple No. 1s on the Global 200, as "Savage Love" follows the septet's "Dynamite," which has spent a week at the summit and this week slips from No. 2 to No. 3." Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- "BTS becomes the first act to have tallied multiple No. 1s on the Global 200, as "Savage Love" follows the septet's "Dynamite," which has spent a week at the summit and this week slips from No. 2 to No. 3." Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [251], supporting "Between November 27 and December 2, BTS held their first live performances before an in-person audience since before the pandemic. The band played four sold-out shows at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles as a continuation of their Permission to Dance on Stage concert series." I don't see the reference to Permission to Dance or to the shows being sold out. Both are implied or perhaps deducible so I am not too concerned but it would be better to source them fully.
- Add Frankeberg citation from Billboard for the numbers on SoFi stadium performances. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [266]: OK.
- [273], supporting "The Love Yourself series was primarily influenced by Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving". I don't see this in the source.
- Erich Fromm source has since been listed by Wikipedia as unreliable and is dropped. Including cite for inspiration for Into the Magic Shop instead. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Added it back as it's reliable per KO/RS. Added Yohnap News Agency source supporting Erich Fromm's work influencing LY series. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- [332] OK.
- [339] OK.
- [365]: OK.
This is definitely better, but I have questions about three of the citations above, and requests for the supporting text in a couple of other cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, we'll fix these and I'll go through the refs I haven't already gone through systematically, and I'll ask you for a recheck, if the coords will allow me a few more days.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm OK with that if the coords are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It won't take me long. I'm working as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Mike Christie, if you could take another look? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm OK with that if the coords are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, we'll fix these and I'll go through the refs I haven't already gone through systematically, and I'll ask you for a recheck, if the coords will allow me a few more days.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Convenience break
Another pass. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- [6] OK.
- [11] is the citation for "The band members lived together, practicing up to 15 hours a day, and first performed before a small crowd of industry insiders in 2013." Can you quote the text in Sprinkel (pp. 46-7) that supports this?
- "With the lineup finally set, the recruits embarked on a grueling training process during which all seven members were constantly together. They lived together, practiced together, and learned together. It was physically and emotionally demanding. Leading up to their debut, they were practicing 12 to 15 hours each day. They were BTS—Bangtan Sonyeondan, the Bulletproof Boy Scouts—and they made their official debut to a room of 200 industry and media members in 2013."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "With the lineup finally set, the recruits embarked on a grueling training process during which all seven members were constantly together. They lived together, practiced together, and learned together. It was physically and emotionally demanding. Leading up to their debut, they were practicing 12 to 15 hours each day. They were BTS—Bangtan Sonyeondan, the Bulletproof Boy Scouts—and they made their official debut to a room of 200 industry and media members in 2013."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [24] OK.
- [54] is the cite for The Most Beautiful... reaching 171 on the Billboard chart. I'm not seeing it in the linked page, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the page I would see if I had a subscription -- can you check?
- You have to click on the drop down menu and it's under "Billboard 200".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have to click on the drop down menu and it's under "Billboard 200".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [96] OK.
- [104] OK, but this is one of those "scheduled to" cites -- it would be better to find a cite that they did perform. I don't consider this a problem for this spot check.
- See cite 375 below. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- [111] OK.
- [156] OK.
- [183] OK.
- [198] OK as far as I can see, but the paywall is stopping me from seeing the bit about the Beatles -- can you quote that?
- [202] OK.
- [203] OK.
- [250] OK.
- [267] OK.
- [270] OK.
- [274] OK.
- [281] cites "Bang Si-hyuk previously acknowledged that K-pop as a whole draws from black music"; can you quote the text from p. 26 of Anderson that supports this?
- If this topic is of interest, here is one of the Guardian articles about this subject here [33]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [289] OK.
- [290] OK.
- [292] OK.
- [293] OK.
- [296] OK.
- [305] OK.
- [306] cites 'On April 29, 2019, Time magazine named BTS one of the 100 most influential people of the year, labeling them the "Princes of Pop"'; can you quote the supporting text?
- The digital article is here [34] where TIME invited Halsey to write a short tribute to BTS. The caption "Princes of pop" was added by TIME editors to the print edition which is not maintained in their digital archive, though here is an image of the original print version here [35]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The digital article is here [34] where TIME invited Halsey to write a short tribute to BTS. The caption "Princes of pop" was added by TIME editors to the print edition which is not maintained in their digital archive, though here is an image of the original print version here [35]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [316] cites "Writers identified BTS as leaders even among other highly influential K-pop groups such as Girls' Generation, Super Junior, Exo, Twice, and Blackpink"; can you quote the text from p. 13 of Youna Kim that supports this?
- "While K-pop construction has traditionally been dominated by “Big 3” entertainment companies (SM, YG and JYP) since the mid-1990s, BTS of Big Hit Entertainment since their debut in 2013 has created a global phenomenon that is more widely recognized and influential. The success of K-pop bands, such as Girls’ Generation, Super Junior, Big Bang, EXO, TWICE, BTS and Blackpink, is a direct outcome of the star system’s intense training to deliver a very polished and easily identifiable show. "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- "While K-pop construction has traditionally been dominated by “Big 3” entertainment companies (SM, YG and JYP) since the mid-1990s, BTS of Big Hit Entertainment since their debut in 2013 has created a global phenomenon that is more widely recognized and influential. The success of K-pop bands, such as Girls’ Generation, Super Junior, Big Bang, EXO, TWICE, BTS and Blackpink, is a direct outcome of the star system’s intense training to deliver a very polished and easily identifiable show. "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [326] OK.
- [345] cites "Feedback from ARMY to BTS affects the group's actions and lyrics; BTS has eliminated certain Korean words that sound like American racial slurs from their songs and ended collaboration with a Japanese producer when Korean ARMY members deemed his views extreme": can you quote the text from pp. 25-27 of Ju that supports this?
- See Wehwalt on #347 below. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- That supports the first part; I still need the text from Ju that supports the second part. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- See Wehwalt on #347 below. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [347] cites "The band members themselves agree and have long acknowledged their fans' role in their success"; can you quote the text on p. 144 of Sprinkel that supports this?
- "The lovefest between BTS and their fans is quite a phenomenon to behold, and it’s a practice the members of BTS remain committed to promoting. And at the end of the day, those seven members acknowledge that none of it would have happened without their supporters. “ARMY is everything. ARMY is water. ARMY is air,” Jin told JoJo Wright in 2020. “ARMY is the reason we’re here,” echoed RM.”--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The lovefest between BTS and their fans is quite a phenomenon to behold, and it’s a practice the members of BTS remain committed to promoting. And at the end of the day, those seven members acknowledge that none of it would have happened without their supporters. “ARMY is everything. ARMY is water. ARMY is air,” Jin told JoJo Wright in 2020. “ARMY is the reason we’re here,” echoed RM.”--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- [355] OK.
- [375] OK, but as with [104] it would be better to have a citation that post-dates the tour. I think a simple reference that the tour happened would be enough, combined with this one to provide the show dates.
- Added cite to clarify from post-date perspective. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Just one possible problem, and a handful of cases where I've requested a quote of the text I can't access. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll get to these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll get to these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Checked off a few above. The only ones left are [198], [281], and [345]. ErnestKrause, I saw your note about [281] above, but the goal of a spotcheck is to check that the sources already in the article support the text, so the Guardian articles, while they might be useful to fix a citation issue, aren't what I'm looking for here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
2016 World Snooker Championship
- Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the 2016 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won the event defeating Ding Junhui in the final. Let me know your thoughts.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review. I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if you object to anything.
- What is a "ranking event"?
- It's an event that carries snooker world rankings points. It's probably a bit difficult to spell that out without it being overly detailed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The event was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015–2016 season." → 'The event was the tenth and last event of the 2015–2016 season that carried snooker world ranking points' doesn't seem difficult to me.
- Apologies GTM, I've been a bit busy with something else. Sure, I've made this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The event was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015–2016 season." → 'The event was the tenth and last event of the 2015–2016 season that carried snooker world ranking points' doesn't seem difficult to me.
- "All the other players". Which group is made up of who?
- Added to summary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- "to within one at 10–9." Missing word?
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- "210 million viewers from China on CCTV-5 in China." I don't think we need both "from China" and "in China."
- Indeed. I've changed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the text on qualifying not in chronological order? Ie, before the text on the first round.
- This is pretty standard - I have asked in the past, but currently there is no consensus to have qualification before the main draw. Probably as it's much less important and can be quite long on these pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not referring to the rather smart graphics. You write about qualifying in some detail in "Tournament summary#Seeding and qualifying rounds" and then repeat some of it and add information in "Qualifying". This level of detail would be better consolidated in one place, and just a brief summary left to introduce "Qualifying", as you do with "Main draw".
- I get your concern. However, I do feel like it would bloat up the format section to include the names of invited players, for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ho hum. I might be inclined to argue further over this, but checking other, similar, promoted articles this approach has clearly been acceptable to other reviewers. Which I find a little odd, but so be it. Otherwise well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I get your concern. However, I do feel like it would bloat up the format section to include the names of invited players, for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not referring to the rather smart graphics. You write about qualifying in some detail in "Tournament summary#Seeding and qualifying rounds" and then repeat some of it and add information in "Qualifying". This level of detail would be better consolidated in one place, and just a brief summary left to introduce "Qualifying", as you do with "Main draw".
That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild. Thanks for the review! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from NØ
- Try to avoid starting two consecutive sentences with "it" in the lead's first paragraph. Maybe the second one can be "The event was the tenth and last of the 2015–16 snooker season that carries ranking points."
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The defending champion was Stuart Bingham" - Active voice if possible
- Sorry, I'm not following Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd do demonyms for both or neither in "China's Ding Junhui and Scot Alan McManus"
- removed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Ding also setting a new record for [...]" - Shouldn't "setting" be "set"? Also there's two consecutive sentences starting with "Ding" so maybe just "he" in the second one.
- We need to avoid "he", because we just spoke about two people, I've reworded. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "he announced his retirement later during the first round of the event" - "later" could be removed here as it is not completely necessary in my opinion, or "he announced his retirement later in the first round of the event"
- reworded Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "raised to £1,500,100 from the previous year's £1,364,000" - maybe "raised to £1,500,100 from £1,364,000 the previous year"
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The semi-finals were played 28–30 April over four sessions" - "on" 28-30 April?
- I've actually been told off for doing that previously. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a problem with WP:OVERLINK in the article. I can count at least six instances of Ding Junhui in the article and a bunch of others (Bingham, maximum break, Allen, Maguire, McManus, Trump, Hawkins, 2011, Davis, Hendry, etc.)
- doing Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- doing Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "A total of 128 players competed in the qualifying" - maybe it's just me but this sounds incomplete. should there be a word after "qualifying"? like maybe "round".
- Added "draw". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- No alt texts?
- added Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was probably being a little nit-picky but that's all. Great work here as usual.--NØ 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from BennyOnTheLoose
Overview
- "is the official world championship of the game of snooker" - add "professional" in there somewhere as there are IBSF and WWS versions too.
- DOne Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could wikilink "world snooker rankings" at first instance.
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The first world championship was held in 1927 taking place in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham..." - how about "The first world championship was held in 1927 at Camkin's Hall, Birmingham..."?
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "modern era" - could do with an inline explanation or footnote.
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "This was Bingham's first championship.." - add a word like "win" or "title" after championship.
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "rolling 147 prize" - suggesting adding an inline explanation or footnote.
- Removed rolling, just state what the prize was. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Tournament
- I don't think that players are consistently referred to, by surname or full name - what is the intention?
- There's a couple people who share last names with high-profile snooker players (Higgins, Davis, etc) and someone like O'Sullivan who shares a last name as someone in the article. When starting a new section, I've mentioned them the first time to denote which one I am referring Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "missed the final black" - we usually add "ball" after the colour. Also, can be cuegloss linked.
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "first woman ever to reach the Crucible" - I know this phrasing has been added for variety, but suggest being a bit more literal (e.g. reach the main event) as women's events have been played there too, e.g. 1998 Women's World Championship (snooker).
- I agree Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Steve Davis announced his retirement" - I think it be worth mentioning that this was announced after he lost to O'Brien.
- As per above this was removed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Could wikilink "century break"
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Could, optionally, cuegloss-link "deciding frame"
- agreed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "succumb to the Crucible curse," - not a phrasing I like. He lost, did not "succumb" to an abstract concept. But we've probably had this wording accepted in other FAs.
- The curse is pretty abstract anyway. It's not an actual curse. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "received a formal warning" - from who?
- Added Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "fellow Scot" - is this relevant?
- Not really. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "In response, tournament organisers changed the cloth and cushions used on the tables" - doesn't look from the source like it was directly "in response" as other players had also complained.
- reworded Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Kyren won the next two" - "Wilson won the next two"
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "he first time in 14 years that Hawkins had beaten" - could use "he" instead of "Hawkins"
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like per MOS:CURRENCY/MOS:DIGITS that 1409 and 1135 should be 1,409 and 1,135 for consistency with four-digit currency amounts in the article.
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Marco Fu led Hawkins by 9–1 before Hawkins won five straight frames to within one frame at 10–9" needs tweaking
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "In the first, Ding was leading McManus 5–0 and 9–3 scoring five centuries in nine frames" - I think needs a comma after "9–3"
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "McManus scored centuries of his own winning six frames to trail 8–9" - how many? Needs a comma after "own"
- Removed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "six centuries set by Davis in 1946," - should have a footnote or mention that the 1946 final was over 145 frames, not 35.
- Added Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win" - seems a bit off-topic, if you don't mention Selby displaying their flag etc.
- I'm not sure it's off-topic, seems like a pretty notable thing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The event as a whole saw a total of 210 million viewers in China on CCTV-5.[78] of a total viewership of 300 million.[77]" - stray full stop. Maybe "The event as a whole attracted 300 million viewers in China, including 210 million on CCTV-5."?
- Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can the YouTube source be replaced for "Defending champion Bingham was seeded first, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings"? A 15 minute video isn't an ideal source.
- I'm sure it could, but it is the official draw. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some World Snooker sources mention WPBSA; these are linked but distinct entities.
- Fixed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Main draw
- I don't like versions of the final table that duplicate the scores under each player. I think the version at 1985 World Snooker Championship looks better, and, with the annotations, is more accessible. This probably can't be a fatal objection though.
- It's not an excuse, but my time is a little limited at the moment, whilst I agree with you, it can take quite some time to change these. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Qualifying
- The EBSA Order of Merit - spell out what the EBSA is at first mention. The links are probably adequate for WLBSA/IBSF and EBSA in the list of qualifying players.
- Players invited by the Order of Merit were limited to one player per country" - how about "Order of Merit invitations were limited to one player per country."?
Hi Lee Vilenski. Comments above. I might have some more later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot the ping I have made the above two changes too BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Despite two minor concerns. I still think "The match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win" could do with something added to show it's relevance here, and the final table should be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot the ping I have made the above two changes too BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Why is BBC Sport italicized and Yahoo! Sports not?
- Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
- What makes SnookerHQ a high-quality reliable source? Chris Turner? Bleacher Report? Snooker.org?
- Personally, I've always found SnookerHQ to be a very well written item that should be considered reliable, but there was just one entry, so I've removed it..
- Chris Turner was the statistician and historian who worked for Eurosport and the BBC. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bleacher Report has been removed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Snooker.org is an award winning statistics site. Only uses direct information from match scores and dates in the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What award(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- According to the about us page, they were on Snooker Scene (and won website of the year in 2011), BilliardsDigest (under a different name), (and a citation in the Independent). It also suggests they won a Britannia Internet Use Guide, and were linked by the BBC Education Web Guide... But I know nothing about these sites. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- What award(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- FNs 12 and 13 are to the same source but are formatted differently - check throughout
- Still seeing issues here, eg FNs 18 and 19 and 82 are all the same site but differently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm looking at the wrong version, but I don't see 18 and 19 as the same. I have made a change with 81 and 82. I did change 2 and 19 too. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now 18 and 20 (World Snooker/worldsnooker.com). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. Changed throughout. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now 18 and 20 (World Snooker/worldsnooker.com). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm looking at the wrong version, but I don't see 18 and 19 as the same. I have made a change with 81 and 82. I did change 2 and 19 too. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fn14 is incomplete. Ditto FN15, FN27, check throughout
- Still issues here, eg FN79 has an author at the source that is missing from the citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've been through the lot and checked the authors. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've caught this one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please check all - I just clicked one (FN73) and found another missing author. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- FN29 claims to be in Norwegian but is not. Ditto FN85.
Some cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi guys, not ignoring these - just running a bit low on time the last couple days. Get to them soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have made the source changes. There's a couple comments on the sources brought up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry NikkiMaria - I had made these changes a while ago, but never pinged through.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Nikkimaria as the attempt above looks to have failed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, and Nikkimaria: - What exactly is the status on this source review? I'm having trouble telling. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still seeing issues with missing data - eg FN45 has an agency at the source but not in the citation. I'm also a bit confused by the formatting logic still - why for example does FN9 have both work and publisher when similar sources have one (but not always the same one)? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, and Nikkimaria: - What exactly is the status on this source review? I'm having trouble telling. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi guys, not ignoring these - just running a bit low on time the last couple days. Get to them soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show
For your consideration, I give you the series finale to Ed, Edd n Eddy. I've taken the page from this to what it is now since the start of 2022. Unless one counts a review from Steve Pulaski, the reception section has been expanded to include all the reviews I found from trustworthy publications. Hopefully it's comprehensive enough to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Image assessment from Buidhe
Aoba47
- What is the current structure for the "Reception" section? I think it would be more helpful to give this section more structure so readers could get a better sense of how critics viewed this film. I believe this essay, WP:RECEPTION, is very helpful for working on these types of sections as they can be difficult to write. I just do not think have this information presented in a long, single paragraph is ideal or as engaging as it could be. To be clear all the information in this section is good. My concern is about it is structured.
This is my only comment. I believe all of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review so I do not have too much to add. Once my above comment is addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope this is helpful and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, Aoba47, I didn't have a particular order/structure in mind when compiling the reviews and am not sure how to rework them. If it wasn't limited to five sources who all felt it did a good job of ending the series, then I might have a better sense of what to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is fair, and I completely understand your point. I will read through that section more thoroughly either today or tomorrow to see if I could get a better handle it to give more direct feedback or suggestions. It could be a case where this is the best way to present this information. I hope that it is okay with you and apologies for the wait. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. Upon further review, this section looks good to me. The paragraph begins with a clear overview of what critics discussed (i.e. how it was a strong conclusion for the series). I appreciate how the reviews are presented in a chronological order and I do think that helps keep the prosing engaging because of the transitions in place around that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, and I appreciate the support :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am just glad that I could help and I was more than happy to read the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review, but I completely understand if you are busy. Bust of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from FrB.TG
Source review from NØ (Pass)
I really like this article's size so I hope it's okay if I grab it for my first-ever source review!
- What makes this a high-quality source? I wasn't able to locate an About Us page and it appears to host a forums section.
- All of the other sources appear to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
- The MovieAddictz ref is not working for me but the archive appears to be ok so it should be marked as dead.
- Ref formatting appears to be consistent with how individual articles on the agencies italicize.
- Spotchecks show nothing of concern.--NØ 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- For whatever it might be worth, MaranoFan, here you can find an "About Us" page for ToonZone before it got renamed to Anime Superhero. That's much more detailed than what you'll find on the current incarnation. What I can safely say is that (under both names) this is a place dedicated to animation with news pieces and isn't just limited to forums. It's not being used for any particularly contentious claims (season 5 being completed along with announcement for future movie) and only seems to be recapping what participants discussed at Comic-Con in 2006. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- From that page: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans. [...] What originally began as a small discussion area on old Prodigy service", unfortunately this doesn't give me a lot of confidence. RSN seems to have been divided (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), with some allegations of WP:SPS. A bit unsure this is passable for FA.--NØ 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. If anything better comes up in my searches (or somebody else finds a good substitute), then I'll be sure to add it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE: No luck with replacements so far, but I did find published interviews they've conducted with people who worked on animated movies, with samples including these pieces. Is this enough to help build credibility? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
How do TheThings and Tom Holland's Terror Time look in comparison? Regarding credentials, you can look here for the former while the latter is from a site by the famous director Tom Holland, often focusing on horror-related works. It also stitches together tweets from Erin Fitzgerald (a member of this show's voice cast), though if you'd prefer linking to one or more of the tweets themselves, then I could probably dig them up. Another option is a video from Akeem Lawanson aka GeekHeavy, a content host for IGN. Before making replacements, I'd like your thoughts please on what would be ideal to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can see TheThings has an editorial team so that one should work. Don't think I would use the other one.--NØ 06:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- TheThings has now been implemented, and I was able to use a 2008 interview with Danny Antonucci to establish how this would mark the debut of Eddy's brother :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Quick question, MaranoFan: do you know how to manually archive links without a tool? My three tries earlier today to run IABot for adding them to newly inserted URLs somehow did nothing at all (which surpised me when this previously worked for other links), and adding these to Wayback Machine also failed :/. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- TheThings has now been implemented, and I was able to use a 2008 interview with Danny Antonucci to establish how this would mark the debut of Eddy's brother :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Guerillero
Oppose
- Sourcing issues
- PatricCaird.com
- ToonZone
- Use of databases such as the LoC and the Big Cartoon DataBase
- UWIRE
- Animated Times
- Prose issues
- "It can be purchased on the iTunes Store and runs for 89 minutes"
- Plot is overly detailed
--Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Except for maybe Toon Zone per above comments, Guerillero, I cannot see any issue with the sources used. In particular, Caird's site feels fine when he composed this film's score. Not sure how much plot to cut when that already has been trimmed down from what it was this past December/January. Each detail included IS relevant. As for the iTunes bit, I hope cutting that to focus more on duration helps in some capacity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sources need to be "high-quality reliable sources" not just reliable. I stand behind my review. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're suggesting the Library of Congress isn't high quality!? That's quite frankly absurd. The least you could do is suggest how to revise the plot or give some useable links. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Copyright Office is an example of the use of databases for basic facts instead of secondary sources. (It's use doesn't support the statement it is used for)
The role of reviewers at FAC is to provide opinions as to how the article stacks again the criteria, not to find sources. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Release/creation dates sound pretty basic to me and they CAN be found in the Copyright Office. You just have to click the link under "Full title" to see more details. I now have revised that link accordingly. In all honesty, your assessment of the refs outside of Toon Zone comes off as unfair, especially when mainstream media coverage of animated TV often is limited compared to what one would find for live action series/movies or even theatrically released animations. This means we sometimes have to look elsewhere for the best possible sources to use on things regarding cartoon shows (which is what I did prior to nominating for FA). You'd be hard-pressed to find much better things than what's already been added. Regarding the plot section, it isn't helpful at all too simply call that "too detailed" without elaborating on which parts could be cut without losing essential information. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Copyright Office is an example of the use of databases for basic facts instead of secondary sources. (It's use doesn't support the statement it is used for)
- You're suggesting the Library of Congress isn't high quality!? That's quite frankly absurd. The least you could do is suggest how to revise the plot or give some useable links. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sources need to be "high-quality reliable sources" not just reliable. I stand behind my review. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS:, just checking to see if you consider you have addressed all of Guerillero's concerns? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Gog the Mild; I feel this page has been reasonably adjusted to account for them, and admittedly still don't think Guerillero was being fair with opposing the use of certain refs (outside of the now-removed Toon Zone) or the plot details. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Guerillero, just checking if your oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry. Real life got busy. I am looking over this again today -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Guerillero, just checking if your oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2022 (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
- animated adventure comedy television film - WP:SEAOFBLUE. You can easily just say "Television film" and put info on genres later. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, lede sentence says "animated" twice. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Infobox has "A.k.a cartoon" with a cap, but our article suggests it shouldn't have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- his unnamed (and previously unseen) - could probably just be culled. Just older brother is enough info for lede.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Participants" - is this the right word for people living in a cul-de-sac? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- team at a.k.a. Cartoon - just say producerLee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Prose
- Credits adapted from The Big Cartoon DataBase.[1] - can we not say anything more helpful here? Like, give the readers an understanding as to what they are reading. I know the topic is "cast", but could easily say "below is a list of voice actors" or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- In The Complete Second Season DVD's "Behind the Eds" interview, he hinted that the film would reveal what is under Double D's hat, though this never occurred. A few episodes, such as "Run Ed, Run", implied that he is bald. - I don't really see what this has to do with this special. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was supposed to be a clue of what was under the hat, and the sentence conveys that Danny Antonucci didn't exactly follow through on the implication Big Picture Show would go for a completely unblocked view. His hat does come off, which Eddy and Ed do see, but the head is always covered in some way until he puts it back on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Certain things are only linked in the lede, and not the body, such as a.k.a. Cartoon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additional comments
- Just a note - I don't really look at sourcing during my FAC reviews (unless something specific pops up), I see there are some comments on this above, so I wouldn't vouch for the quality of the sourcing used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only reasonable objection Guerillero had to sources was Toon Zone, which is no longer used, Lee Vilenski. I wish he provided specific suggestions for changing the article like you did here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking forward to it, Lee Vilenski! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Support from NØ
I support this nomination, pending however much importance coords decide to accord to the concerns others raised (I suppose it still being open is a good sign).--NØ 12:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123
I'm going to focus on sources, since those seem to be the biggest issues here.
- Sources 1, 6, 10, and 11 are database sources or the equivalent, and they really aren't that special – most TV episodes would have these sources.
- Sources 2, 7, 9, and 12 are self-published sources, either directly or indirectly (via press releases).
- Sources 4 and 5 only tangentially touch on the topic.
This leaves seven sources that could possibly be considered "reliable" and contribute to notability – the bare minimum for a stand-alone article. This would be sufficient for a typical article, but considering that WP:FACR requires high-quality sources, there are more issues.
- Source 3 doesn't seem very high-quality – it reminds me of sites like Showbiz Cheat Sheet, which is generally considered unreliable.
- Sources 15 and 16 are from a university wire service; I don't think student newspapers are particularly high-quality sources.
- Sources 13 and 14 don't seem like high-quality websites. Yes, this is partly based on appearances (but if it looks and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck), but a good way to check is the editorial policy, and these sites don't have one. Animated Times even outright rejects any responsibility for errors.
The two remaining sources (8 and 17) are fine, but they're nowhere near enough to support a FA, in my opinion. I'm leaning oppose, unfortunately. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having only a brief mention doesn't negate reliability, RunningTiger123, even when less useful for building articles. Databases and self-published sources can also come in handy for basic information (which is what I used them for here). For the pieces that go into further depth, see the above discussion for deciding to use ref#3 (TheThings), which does have an editorial team and I'm not sure how that resembles Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Student newspapers might not be held in as high regard as most mainstream newspapers, but it's not like either of the ones implemented are used for anything controversial, only their opinions on the movie. Same goes for MovieAddictz and Animated Times. If I knew of any better things to include, then I already would've added those. Perhaps we just missed something that was published after I initiated the FAC? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE: How do these articles from Screen Rant, Collider, Vocal Media, or Real Atlanta Magazine look in comparison? It took some digging but I found those through another search of the movie. Whatever your answer might be, one thing I would like to add is that both UWIRE sources I added came from the Wikipedia Library, which admittedly struck me as a good sign they could be trusted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the brief mentions/databases/self-published sources: Yes, they are still reliable sources, but my point was that there isn't a lot of high-quality coverage. It's one thing to fill in small gaps with those types of sources; it's another to base the majority of an article off of those.
- Regarding TheThings: I hadn't seen that discussion. If consensus is to include it, then that's fine. I personally think it's clickbait (Title: "Why was it canceled?" → It wasn't, it was actually renewed for two seasons past its original end date) and should be replaced with a different source, especially since it's citing a random YouTube video as its source. Speaking of UGC...
- Regarding lower-quality sources for opinions: If a source is not high-quality, then its reviews are basically just user-generated content, similar to any review you might find on IMDb, Metacritic fan ratings, etc. The college sources fall into this point (in my opinion) because there's no way to know if the authoring students are significant in any way. Also, the Vocal Media and Real Atlanta sources are UGC, as best as I can tell. The Screen Rant article basically says "the movie is a thing that exists", which isn't particularly strong coverage. The Collider article seems okay, though it's not enough to switch my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- For whatever it might be worth, the YouTube video is from an IGN content host (something I noted earlier); GeekHeavy isn't simply a random user. Our next best option from what I can tell is to use a link that compiles tweets from a cast member (see above). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a borderline case. WP:RSPYT indicates that the credibility of a video is inherited from its creator. If this had been published via IGN directly I'd be good with it, but since it comes from someone who just happens to work there, it's not as strong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I myself would've preferred to see something uploaded through IGN's channel, but oh well. Added Collider in the meantime. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
1920–21 Burnley F.C. season
I originally submitted this article for FAC just over 12 years ago. Sadly, it didn't pass that time and I kind of forgot about it for a decade or so. But the recent FA promotion of Burnley's other title-winning season in 1959–60 prompted me to have another go at this one. Since last time, I've managed to access the archives of an alternative local newspaper, which allowed me to add a bit more detail about the team's playing style and some more context around some of the matches. These kind of articles might not be to everyone's taste, but hopefully I have addressed the main concerns from the first nomination, so here we go! BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "Burnley's chairman, Harry Windle, had been elected to the position in 1909, and manager John Haworth was marking his 11th consecutive year in charge." - source?
- Added
- "The team's last competitive match had ended in a 0–2 defeat" - I would say that by far the most common way to report a football score is with the larger score first, irrespective of the outcome e.g. this source says "Liverpool lost 1-0 to Real Madrid", not "Liverpool lost 0-1 to Real Madrid". I would reconfigure any score shown like this one to show the larger score first.
- I thought I'd caught all these to be honest, thanks for spotting this one!
- Shouldn't the bit about Moorwood joining in October and the bit about Bamford leaving in September be in the paragraph starting "Transfer activity continued after the season began"?
- Rejigged
- "Bradford City, who had finished 15th in the league in 1919–20" - source?
- Added
- "Burnley moved to the top of the table on goal average" - link GA?
- Done
- One solitary league attendance is unknown?
- Yep, not given in Simpson. I had a look at the match report in the Burnley Express archive (where I presume Simpson also looked) and the Lancashire Daily Post (Preston's local paper) but no luck. As you probably know, attendances weren't officially recorded in those days so they weren't always reported in the newspapers.
- Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, not given in Simpson. I had a look at the match report in the Burnley Express archive (where I presume Simpson also looked) and the Lancashire Daily Post (Preston's local paper) but no luck. As you probably know, attendances weren't officially recorded in those days so they weren't always reported in the newspapers.
- "drawn against Queens Park Rangers at Turf Moor in the Second Round." - no reason for caps on second round
- Or third round
- Have changed these in the prose, left them capitalised in the table (but can also change here if you prefer, I tried it and didn't like the way it looked)
- "the Charity Shield, then known as the Dewar Shield" - are you sure this is true? Our article on the Community Shield makes no mention of it ever having that name, and RSSSF says "The FA Charity Shield was introduced in 1908 to succeed the Sheriff of London (Dewar) Shield"
- Must have been the Burnley Express correspondent using the old name, deleted that subclause.
- The tables need row scopes
- Forgive my ignorance, but what does this do other than just turn the cell grey? (done, by the way)
- It's to do with visually impaired site users who use a screen reader, it makes the screen reader read the contents of the table out correctly....or something..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance, but what does this do other than just turn the cell grey? (done, by the way)
- The "Players having played at least one first-team match" table doesn't include the Lancs/East Lancs Cup games, which earlier you categorised as first team games - are the line-ups not recorded for these?
- I will have to go back to the library to check the newspaper reports, might be after the bank holiday before I get chance though.
- Managed to get to the library for an hour last night. I've added the ELCC and LSC apps/goals to the table and updated players' goals totals in the prose where appropriate. Even managed to get the attendances for the two ELCC games from the local papers (double checked the Preston league game though and definitely wasn't reported). BigDom (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I will have to go back to the library to check the newspaper reports, might be after the bank holiday before I get chance though.
- In the aftermath section you use the {{inflation}} template in conjunction with {{currentyear}}, but the documentation for the former explicitly says not to do this
- Changed to the way you have used it in 1990–91 Gillingham F.C. season
- That's what I got - great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for having a read through! I've addressed most of these, I think, just need to do a quick library trip to check again for those missing lineups. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Support from Eem dik doun in toene
I had already posted my thoughts/comments on BigDom's talk page, and the article has only improved since then. It's a well written article which deserves FA status. Well done! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- Not necessarily an issue, but why do you have the website/work parameter included for the two 11v11 web citations ([17] and [50]), but not for the other two web citations ([44] and [63])?
- I think because they were "borrowed" from another article. It makes sense, I think, because the website name and the publisher are quite different, and naming the publisher (the Association of Football Statisticians) helps to give some credibility. I've added it for [63] too (website=givemefootball, publisher=Professional Footballers' Association). I don't really see the point for the remaining one, since the web address and the publisher (the Football League) are basically identical.
- Both the book sources appear to be published by Burnley themselves. What makes these reliable?
- True, they were. The Clarets Chronicles at least has been used in several other featured articles (e.g. Burnley F.C., History of Burnley F.C., Turf Moor, 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season) so there is precedent there. Its author, Ray Simpson, was the club's official historian so presumably counts as a subject matter expert. Both books are mostly based on contemporary newspaper reports, Football League records (team sheets, match reports, etc.) so I don't think there's much reason to doubt their veracity. In my experience, although these kind of books are often produced by the clubs themselves in the UK, I'm not really sure they're the kind of thing that WP:SPS is taking aim at (e.g. vanity press publications, blogs, and so on).
- What's the thinking behind linking to the Gale version of the Times archive? I have a Times subscription, and was expecting to be able to check these easily, but instead it goes to the Gale link.
- Pretty much the other side of the coin. I have access to the Gale version (through the Wikipedia Library) but am not a Times subscriber, so the only way I had access was through that. I don't mind if the URLs are changed to the Times version, but I don't have the access to be able to do it.
Links are all good, and I see no other formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Thanks for the review, I've replied above. Happy to make more changes if needed. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your answers address my concerns. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
- "The team went into the match against Everton on 23 April 1921 needing a draw to clinch the league championship": might be worth mentioning this is an away match? And say how many games were left when they clinched the title?
- I see the attendance for the game against Preston at Turf Moor is not given; is there some reason it's unavailable? Same question for the missing attendance figures in the non-league match table.
- I should really have mentioned this in the source review above, but I didn't notice the fchd.info link in the "Final league position" section. FCHD came up in this review, and the nominator was able to replace it there; can you give additional information about its reliability, or find another source? I can see it's one of those "labour of love" websites, and I have no doubt it's very accurate and thoroughly researched, but I'm not yet convinced it meets our standards for FAs, since it's the work of a single person who is not a professional in the field.
- A separate point: whether we keep FCHD or replace it, I don't think it's good style to have the external link in the middle of the article. An alternative would be to have a sentence there saying "Data sourced from FCHD" or whatever the source ends up being, with a footnote giving the source and external link. Or you could do it the way the match tables do it, with the footnote attached to the subsection heading.
- Only one match in the East Lancashire Charity Cup is mentioned. There's no link (is it worth a redlink?) so I can't check; was this one of those cups like the Charity Shield that only involved two clubs?
- I see Birchenough was acquired in August 1920, and Dawson was injured in the opening match but returned after missing only two matches. Was Birchenough acquired because of Dawson's injury? If the sources don't say then we can't comment, of course, but since Birchenough was let go again later in the season it seems plausible.
- Again I should have raised this in the source review: what's the source for the player table data? The only citation is for the "Other" column.
Generally this is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
C. J. Cregg
- Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This is Claudia Jean Cregg, a fictional character on NBC's The West Wing and my indirect namesake. She was a core cast member throughout the entirety of the show's run, and earned her portrayer, Allison Janney, more Emmys than anyone else on the show (justice for Martin Sheen, who played President Jed Bartlet and somehow didn't get any). Her portrayal was—while hampered by the show's misogynistic atmosphere—smart, funny, and assertive. I've been working on lots of West Wing characters articles (not to mention lots of people named Claudia), but I'm proud and excited that this is the first in both categories that I'm submitting for FA. Thanks in advance to everyone who weighs in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Things that need consensus from new commenters:
- Is three dates in the citations (date published, date archived, date accessed) too many? should the latter be cut?
Comments from indopug
- the infobox should be restricted to real-world information. In-universe information cannot really ever be objective and doesn't belong in an infobox. Especially since this one is so long and contains possibly trivial and uncited (I did searches for the family members and could find no mentions in the article body) information.
- Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that all in-universe information is subjective and has no place in the infobox. Looking around other fictional character FAs, lots of them do have in-universe sections (see Bart Simpson). That said, I've limited the in-universe section of the infobox to information relevant and cited in the prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, can "C. J." be spelt "CJ", which would look less clumsy in the text (especially when used frequently)?
- I'm not wild about it – she is rather rare as a fictional character (the only biography-style articles that refer to their subjects by common name) with an acronym'd first name, but C. J. is a fairly common spelling in the media and my own preferred spelling. "C.J." seems incorrect, and "CJ" feels unprofessional. I have, however, removed the {{nbsp}} tags from in between C. and J., as I think those were a little overkill. It's like asking for US instead of U.S.; up to personal preference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Three dates in every citation is overkill. The reader doesn't need a retrieval date when he has access to a permanent link.—indopug (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Retrieval dates are mandatory under the MOS. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:CITEWEB, "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include . . . the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)". Since pub dates are known here, retrieval dates are not mandatory at all.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- let's put a pin in this for now; if there's consensus to remove the retrieval dates, we'll go for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:CITEWEB, "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include . . . the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)". Since pub dates are known here, retrieval dates are not mandatory at all.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Guerillero; in general, the most important date is at the beginning of the citation anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, indopung! I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- oops, bad ping to indopug theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Retrieval dates are mandatory under the MOS. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Indopug, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Guerillero
I will do the source review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- One of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows
- Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." What is the significant influence of Gregg 2009?
- Heisler 2009a and Heisler 2009b need the publication info
- Why is Comic Book Resources a High Quality Reliable Source?
- Why is The Cut a High Quality Reliable Source?
- Is the tweet from AP covered anywhere else?
- Missing author for The Journal News article
- Post-Teen Vouge's 2016 slip into being a glorified mouthpiece of the DSA, I have a decent amount of skepticism of using them for political opinions
- -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Guerillero! Glad you like her :) Replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to replace the information from Gregg...
- Watching and waiting. Let me know when you are finished --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: should be done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added The A.V. Club to the Heisler refs
- Perfect --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Cut is WP:RSP-greenlit as a publication of New York Magazine
- Withdrawn --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I asked Pamzeis about CBR a while back, when I was reviewing one of her DYK noms – I'll copy her response here:
Comic Book Resources, on the other hand, is widely regarded as a reliable source for comics, etc. (see discussions here and here) and has been cited by WaPo, Daily News, CNBC, Vox, etc.
- Withdrawn --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Couldn't find the AP tweet anywhere else, but I can look again?
- Yes please. Since there is video of Janney, I would assume that someone would have written an article about it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that WP:BIASed sources are automatically disqualified from FA – I can give it less space, but I don't see it as a fringe viewpoint, particularly when the Psaki–Cregg comparison was criticized in the opinion column of the Los Angeles Times. Plus, Teen Vogue is a subset of Vogue magazine, which is also RSP greenlit.
- Withdrawn --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to replace the information from Gregg...
- Thanks, Guerillero! Glad you like her :) Replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Indy beetle
- Why is the character's first name used in preference to her surname? There is a mix on naming choices in this article generally that should have some logic to it. Simon Donovan is referred to by his last name, for example.
- "Indeed" is used to start sentences four times. It's not really a great word to use, and adds unnecessary editorial emphasis to some statements over others in Wiki voice.
- Indeed, C. J. is widely thought to be an adept, empathetic, confident, witty, and independent character with considerable depth, This is cited to four sources. Unless one of those sources plainly states that these are "widely thought" views of the character, this is technically a WP:SYNTH violation. None of the quotes provided with those citations suggest that this is a majority view, it just happens to be an amalgamation of sources which profess a positive view.
- Since The West Wing frequently mixes the personal and professional, This is somewhat vague. Perhaps be more specific that the show covers both the "personal lives" and "professional careers" of its characters.
- This is realized in the series finale, "Tomorrow"; in the episode, C. J. leaves the White House, choosing Danny instead. No need for the dramatic implication; just say outright, "choosing to pursue a relationship with Danny instead" or something applicable.
- Critical reception of C. J. Cregg has been highly positive, both during and after the show's run. Is this claim directly supported by a reliable source?
-Indy beetle (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Tentative replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The characters are referred to by their WP:COMMONNAME – some characters, like the show's core senior staff, are on a first-name basis with the audience (RSes) and each other. Other characters, like the president and side characters with honorifics, aren't generally referred to by first name by reliable sources or the show.
- Cut the "indeed"s
- I mean, I suppose you're right that the "widely thought" isn't in the sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree that that's a SYNTH problem. If every reliable source stated that the Earth was a globe, but none opined that every other source thought the exact same way, would we really not be allowed to say "the Earth is widely thought to be a globe" (that would be relevant in the Flat Earth article)? When we're looking for the common name of an article, do we need sources that say "this is most commonly referred to as A, but it's also B or C"? It seems a strange interpretation of SYNTH to say that editors are responsible for assessing the attitude of reliable sources as it relates to due weight, but aren't allowed to express that in prose. That said, I'd be happy to look for broader sources, or change to "has been described as" to narrow the scope to those for, but I don't know if I take much issue with it.
- Well, since it is the viewpoint of RSes, I just put it in wikivoice.
- Fixed the sentence in the reception section
- Fixed "personal/professional" and C. J./Danny
- Sorry for the delay, Indy beetle! Stuff's been crazy- I think I've got it now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewers have praised C. J.'s performance The character isn't performing, they're the one being performed. Maybe "C.J.'s portrayal" or "Janney's performance"? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: made a couple moves there :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewers have praised C. J.'s performance The character isn't performing, they're the one being performed. Maybe "C.J.'s portrayal" or "Janney's performance"? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Offering my support now. I've added some info from a profile on Janney, move it around as you wish. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Indy beetle! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:04, 8 June 2022 (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
- C. J. is widely thought to be a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, - by whom? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably it's over-emotional? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like the awards part is probably more important, and should come before the rest of the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Changed "widely thought" to "portrayed as"
- "Overemotional" is a defined word – I presume it was de-hyphenated?
- These awards tend to be pretty self-involved – other than the occasional reference to support Janney's acting prowess, it wasn't heavily discussed by reliable sources. The bulk of the reporting tends to cover the other stuff – plus, the awards are pretty lengthy and a little boring. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Prose
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - I think this is probably the third ping you're getting from me going through the older FACs, but just want to make sure you didn't miss Gog's question above. Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments and support from Gerda
I feel invited to another subject I don't know, will comment as I read, looking at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
name
- I am puzzled by C. J. Cregg vs. the full name. If the character is known by the abbreviated form, that should also show on top of the infobox, and be explained with a bold name in the lead. Otherwise the infobox is fine, just "children at least one" tells me nothing at this point.
- In the day-to-day of the show, she goes by "C. J." – if she walked up to you and introduced herself, she'd tell you that she's "C. J. Cregg". If she had to sign a mortgage, that'd probably be "Claudia Jean Cregg". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think, even if this a character, I'd would like to see the two names handled the same way as for a real person, - if she is commonly C. J. Gregg, that should be bold in the first paragraph, and be the header of the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the day-to-day of the show, she goes by "C. J." – if she walked up to you and introduced herself, she'd tell you that she's "C. J. Cregg". If she had to sign a mortgage, that'd probably be "Claudia Jean Cregg". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
TOC
- Mostly fine, but I don't think I need four entries for Cited sources.
- Not sure what this means? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Maybe some semicolon headers, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Maybe some semicolon headers, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what this means? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Creation
- Forgive me, but knowing nothing, not the series, not the actress, I'd like first a bit of what kind of character in what kind of series. Yes, there are links, but three sentences of a general introduction of the context wouldn't hurt. Actress probably last, unless it is completely determined by her - which I don't know yet.
- Hmm... let me brainstorm on this a bit. I'm generally quite averse to putting in-universe information in the real-world section, but there might be some context I can give anyway.
- I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't think giving in-universe details about the characters is good for the real-world section. I really prefer maintaining that separation between the two, and any information I'd be comfortable putting up there would already appear in the lead. This isn't a story, it's an encyclopedia article – I think it's okay to keep that information in its section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Casting
- Once Sorkin has been introduced, surname is enough.
- I'll say this once up here, because unlike my policy on given names, I do mind repetition on this. I often find that this minimalistic policy of given names/surnames is too restrictive, and harmful in writing an article. Some names are only thrown around two or three times; it's easier to build an impression in the mind of the reader if they can instantly connect these names together, instead of mentioning a full name once in the first body paragraph and then throwing in a last name near the end. That's something I often find annoying in reading others' articles, especially when I'm Ctrl+F hopping for a single section. Having to track down where the author's article felt a single first name mention was enough and putting together who this person is and why they're important is frustrating. Instead, for names that only come up a few times, I prefer to repeat both the given and surname, to keep a clear, consistent identifier the reader can internalize. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I find all the details about the actresses relationship to the character a bit premature, not yet knowing what character that is.
- The image caption repeats much of the prose, while I'd prefer to know when it was taken, and if it is the actress in private, the character, or the character in the other show mentioned.
- Hmm. I had an image caption like you describe over at Mrs. Landingham, but I got dinged because simply picturing the actor wasn't enough to demonstrate relevancy. I developed that caption style because of that. Do you think it'd be okay to switch back? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please take this up with the other editor. I want to see in a caption what a pic shows, more than context. This caption doesn't tell me if this is a private pic, or from one show or from another, which would be minimum I expect from a caption. The reasons for her being chosen are not pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I like the present caption better, I think "portrayer" and "pictured" make it needlessly complicated. How about: "J, who played C, in 2014"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. I had an image caption like you describe over at Mrs. Landingham, but I got dinged because simply picturing the actor wasn't enough to demonstrate relevancy. I developed that caption style because of that. Do you think it'd be okay to switch back? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Appearance
- Once Lyn Paolo is introduced, Paolo is enough.
Character ..
- I think I'd prefer to know that part before the details of casting and appearance.
- more given names that are not needed
Personality
- ref order
- "that a relationship would "hurt my reputation" - I think this doesn't need to be a quote, to avoid third person here, first person there: "that a relationship would hurt her reputation"
- Both fixed :)
Romance
- Why is it C. J. and Danny here, but Donovan there?
- C. J. and Danny (in particular, C. J.) are regular characters on the show without formal titles – so, on the show (and in RSes), they're referred to by their common names. Donovan, however, is a special recurring character for only a season, and since he works for the Secret Service, he's usually referred to as Donovan or Agent Donovan – not Simon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sexism
- "Leo, who relayed the staffers' guesses to the president, left out C. J.'s predictions, which she suspected was because she was a woman. In the end, C. J. was shown to have made the correct guess." - I understand not wanting to repeat "predictions" but "guess" sounds wrong if it should be stressed that she had the best evaluation.
- Well, "prediction" is generally more certain than "guess" (a prediction is kind of an educated guess), so I don't see what's wrong with setting up C. J. as the more competent forecaster here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- guess (without "educated") for me is still only by chance, but that may be just me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, "prediction" is generally more certain than "guess" (a prediction is kind of an educated guess), so I don't see what's wrong with setting up C. J. as the more competent forecaster here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "... she is introduced as the "very lovely, the very talented – Claudia Jean Cregg". He then tells the entire room ..." - who is "he"?
- Whoops! fixed.
Lead
- just general at this point: I think it is too short, but too long repeating all these awards. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let me know – thanks, Gerda! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I think I've responded to everything now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am with you for the explanations, but would like to read once more, in the light of them. I had hoped to do that on Monday, but both here and RL more urgent things came in between (here Stefan Geosits and Kurt Equiluz), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I now gave you a bit of feedback above, and all without a response is taken as you explained.
- Lead once more:
- Can we have a year for the sixth season, or do we just assume 2005 by thinking season is year?
- I think the lead has too much detail about the awards.
- Things I could imagine to be in the lead: number of episodes, about her character "empathetic", "emotionally vulnarable", "politically inept" (first) but "develops into a politically astute character, sometimes more so than her male counterparts", and the BBC as quite a to-the point summary.
- See also: I don't need it. Two of the items are in the navbox, and the third could just be linked, no? It seems nothing particular for this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for getting back to me! I've added the year for the sixth season (1999 + five seasons later = 2004), fleshed out the lead and trimmed the awards, changed the image's caption, and cut out the "see also" section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I like it better. I feel that first to say how the character is portrayed, and then who designed, puts it the chronologically wrong way. You might use that first sentence further up to give a general idea. I feel that the romance episode is not really lead-worthy, but again, that may be just me. I might rather include other reception items. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I looked again now, and while I'm happy with the first and the last para, the center is not yet "there" for me. "C. J. is portrayed as a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, but she is frequently patronized and objectified by the men on the show. Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator, designed her to be assertive and independent from men. Initially, she is portrayed as politically inept, but she quickly becomes one of the most respected and savvy characters on the show. She is also sometimes portrayed as over-emotional, a trait criticized by reviewers as a misogynistic stereotype. Her onscreen romance with Danny Concannon, a senior White House reporter, was also criticized by commentators as unfairly subject to the "woman-as-traitor" trope." As said before, first "is portrayed" and then "designed" is the wrong order for my understanding. I think the para uses "also" too much, and "also sometimes" is top saying nothing for me. "woman-as-traitor" trope: I'd need to look up what that means. All this could be just me who would so like to end with the "most respected character" bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for getting back to me! I've added the year for the sixth season (1999 + five seasons later = 2004), fleshed out the lead and trimmed the awards, changed the image's caption, and cut out the "see also" section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I've reworked the lead some – I think it's definitely a lot better. The romance was a not-insignificant part of her character, so it should probably stay (I can try to slim it down a little)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I like it much better. Please find a way to not use "portrayed" three times, which should be easy as the article is not about an actress but the character, so you might say what she does. "Despite C. J.'s shortcomings and surroundings", - I'd argue that it might be because of her complexity that she is a believable character. One question about a pic caption is open (further up), but we are almost there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I can't parse your second idea here, but I fixed the first and third? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, and support. The second: I think that her character might be the best not despite her "shortcomings", but in a way because of them, as a complex human being with shortcomings. Like Percy Grainger (born on this day). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I can't parse your second idea here, but I fixed the first and third? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I like it much better. Please find a way to not use "portrayed" three times, which should be easy as the article is not about an actress but the character, so you might say what she does. "Despite C. J.'s shortcomings and surroundings", - I'd argue that it might be because of her complexity that she is a believable character. One question about a pic caption is open (further up), but we are almost there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I've reworked the lead some – I think it's definitely a lot better. The romance was a not-insignificant part of her character, so it should probably stay (I can try to slim it down a little)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:CJ_Cregg.jpg: is there a reason to have two separate FURs for the same article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Hmm, not sure what to do about the alt text, because the captions seem to do fine? If there's more information to be included, I'm happy to do so. As for the infobox image FUR, these image files are quite old and predate my involvement, so I never caught that one. Just fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you really feel the captions are sufficient information for those who cannot see the files, you can use an alt of 'refer to caption' - I would suggest though that that would be sufficient only for the actress image. I'd also suggest merging some of the information from the second FUR into the remaining one, which is now quite sparse. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping back! @Nikkimaria: I've taken a run at adding some alts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alts that exist are fine - as above, the actress image can use a 'refer to caption' alt. Also don't use fixed px size, and the point re: merging above is pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Fixed the upright, and beefed up the FUR a little bit – for the actress image, you mean the second file (first non-infobox)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alts that exist are fine - as above, the actress image can use a 'refer to caption' alt. Also don't use fixed px size, and the point re: merging above is pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping back! @Nikkimaria: I've taken a run at adding some alts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, you meant that the actress image is good to go, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Allison-Janney in 2014.jpg currently has no
|alt=
at all - as above, it can just refer to caption, but should be included. For the FUR, suggest further expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)- @Nikkimaria: Done, I believe – sorry this has taken such a back-and-forth! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Allison-Janney in 2014.jpg currently has no
- Ah, you meant that the actress image is good to go, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
- "CCH Pounder". Why not 'C. C. H. Pounder'?
- Difference in RS coverage – Claudia Jean is C. J., Carol Christine Hilaria is CCH. Just following along :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, the MoS (MOS:INITIALS) treats this as a rare specific exception, so ok.
- Link Guyanese.
- Done!
- There are a couple of duplinks.
- I left in the duplinks for The Atlantic – doesn't hurt to leave an extra one in the quote box. I also left in an extra piped link to "Celestial Navigation", since I don't reaaally need to restate the episode title. Otherwise, fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Insert a non-breaking space into every use of "C. J.".
- Oh, jeez – okay, done.
- "gave way for a "longer drape" ". Consider "way" → 'scope' or similar.
- I changed it to "allowed for", that should be clearer.
- "as intellectually on par with the male senior staff." I assume this is correct USEng? BritEng would have 'as intellectually on a par with the male senior staff.'
- Someone's free to challenge me, but yeah, that doesn't look amiss to my understanding of AmEng.
- In the "Romance" section the tense jumps from past to present and back. Could you pick one an stick to it.
- Changed the one past section to present
- Lead "Children: At least one"; article: "married to Danny with one child." Which? If the former, mention it in the article.
- We only know about one, so I just made it 1 in the ibox.
- "The host then tells the entire room during a commercial break that C. J. is not wearing pants." Why should telling the audience that C. J. is wearing a skirt be an issue? And why can they not see that for themselves?
- I think the host was signaling that C. J. was in her underwear from the waist down, which wouldn't've been noticeable given the setup of the room (she was on a political punditry show, so she was obscured behind the big desk). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I think I get it. I guess that you had to have been there.
- Are there so few sources that it is necessary to quote "represented the fantasy of the Bartlet White House better than anyone" twice?
- I do want that one in the quotebox, and i usually leave one quote per reviewer. In this case, the review is pretty small, and that's the only substantially positive line (complaint on Sorkin's missteps with women). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Reviewers also praised Janney's performance;The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote in 2001 that Janney "combines comedy, drama, and political savvy" in C. J., praising her ability to alternate between wit and seriousness throughout each episode." "... praised ... praising ...' Synonym time?
- Synonym time indeed!
- "in attempting to mimic". Is it accepted that Psaki was attempting to mimic C. J.?
- Fixed that :)
That's all I have. Classy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gog the Mild! That should be everything :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Sayfo
This article is about the lesser known sibling of the Armenian genocide. Thanks so much to Ichthyovenator and Hog Farm who reviewed at ACR, Jens Lallensack for the GAN, and Miniapolis for a thorough copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- The shading in the Assyrian percentage map is quite difficult to distinguish - see MOS:COLOUR
- Suggest scaling up the Paris Peace Conference map
- File:Syrian_Women_of_the_Kurdistan_Mountains_in_Flight.png: why is Iranian copyright believed relevant? The given source was published in the US and UK. If it is kept, the tag indicates that the description should specify which rationale applies.
- That comment on Iranian copyright applies to multiple other images
- File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg: one of the authors listed died less than 70 years ago
- File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg: can a more specific copyright tag be applied?
- File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Map_of_Assyria_Paris_Peace_Conference_1919.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria I put Iranian tags because the photographs were taken in Iran, so I figured that would be the source country.
- Okay - tag requires that the description page identify which rationale listed is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg —published in US in 1924, details added to image description.
- File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg As stated in the deletion request, the man who died in 1935 is credited with the illustrations in the book, while the other guy wrote the text
- File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg Same situation as the previous one, this is PD-old-70-1923, licensing corrected
- File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg I'm not sure about the author's death date, but the French source linked in the image description says the author's works are public domain and I have no reason to doubt it.
- As for the map, I don't know about the author's death so removed that claim. But it was definitely published in 1919 or 1920. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Still concerned about the map shading; image description on Iranian images needs to identify which rationale is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by GGT
I had worked quite a bit on this article a number of years ago, so am quite familiar with the topic in general. Buidhe's important work on this rather under-researched but important part of history has been exciting to follow and I'll be pleased to read through the article and share some of my thoughts - this is my first FAC review on en.wiki so please do bear with me.
- I'm not too comfortable with the image in the lead. We don't really know where this was taken, we don't know who took it. The only verification we have about the image is the single sentence caption in a 1916 book that seems to have been sponsored by the Assyrian Church. All it shows is a bunch of women wearing the garments of the day and carrying a bunch of bags in a countryside setting. I've just seen too many instances of falsified or out-of-context claimed images of atrocities for this period. Granted, these are mostly from the denialist camp but as the article explains quite well, the Assyrian church had its own reasons for being less than factual. So I'm not comfortable with having this image in the article without a secondary source using it, or at least some attribution.
- Similarly with the image captioned "Cavalry and slain Assyrians at the mission in Urmia". This image is so low-resolution that it's not even very meaningful. The caption in the primary source from which it's taken raises more questions than it answers.
- Removed both images
- "The Syriac Orthodox Church has officially rejected the use of "Assyrian" since 1952, however, but not all Syriac Orthodox reject Assyrian identity." "However, but" sounds a bit clunky.
- Reworded
- "David Gaunt has estimated the Assyrian population at between 500,000 and 600,000 just before the outbreak of World War I, significantly higher than Ottoman census figures." This sentence conveys Gaunt's estimate to be much more confident than it actually is. In fact, Gaunt is very tentative in his calculations in the cited work as well as his more detailed account in Massacres, Resistance, Protectors. His bottom line is that there aren't really any reliable figures for the population, and I don't think that this comes across as such in the article. The sentence also begs the question of what the official Ottoman figure was and why it's discounted, which should be easy enough to add to the article.
- Reworded. There was no official Ottoman figure for Assyrians since they were counted in a fragmentary way by religious denomination; I removed the reference to the census. In his 2006 book, Gaunt says that the 1914 Ottoman census's figures for "non-Muslims were thoroughly misleading and inaccurate. As a token of the confused nature of the official census-taking and the lack of coordination between the local correspondents, the Syriac Orthodox population is shown in three separate categories: Süryaniler, Eski Süryaniler, and Jakobiler"
- I'm hoping to keep posting comments as I read through the article. --GGT (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the improvements! I consider the issues above to be fully resolved. Moving on...
- "Under the Qudshanis-based Patriarch of the Church of the East, Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountains east of Tur Abdin (adjacent to the Ottoman–Persian border) with aşiret status—in theory, with full autonomy." I note that this section, along with a substantial part of the article, relies extensively on Gaunt's work: I won't critique this too much as I'm aware that this is an understudied topic but some of his more general comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, and this is one of those. The sentence doesn't make sense to me as a native Turkish speaker as aşiret isn't really a status. It simply means "tribe" (so the sentence is repetitive) and was integrated into Ottoman administrative hierarchy as such, but it wasn't a status that was bestowed, so to speak, and it also didn't theoretically provide full autonomy. (For a non-Turkish speaker I imagine this sentence also doesn't really clarify what an aşiret is.) This article provides a good overview of what an "aşiret" is its place in Ottoman law. If Assyrian tribes enjoyed full autonomy, that would have been thanks to the remoteness of the region rather than any status.
- Rephrased
- "Assyrian efforts to maintain their independence" - this should probably read "autonomy" rather than independence.
- Done
- "Historians date mass violence against the Assyrians to the 1830s or earlier" - I'd say that the wording here is a bit too similar to the source. Also Gaunt doesn't really cite any historical works to substantiate this statement.
- Reworded
- There is a bit of a chronological confusion here - the Russo-Turkish war precedes the creation of the Hamidiye cavalry; the cavalry should probably be discussed within the context of the Hamidian massacres. --GGT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added dates and restored chronological order. The cavalry were not involved in the 1895 massacres in Diyarbekir. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- "In particular, the Ottoman Empire wanted to annex Persia's Azerbaijan province to connect with Russia's Muslim subjects in Transcaucasia." I'd say that this is a slight oversimplification of the Ottoman motives, this article provides a better summary than Gaunt for this IMO. At any rate, the aim wasn't necessarily to "annex" to territory but rather to "occupy" it.
- Removed the sentence. I'm not sure exactly what the academic consensus on this issue is, but I would hesitate to cite that source since as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about Assyrians.
- "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire (including plots to annex territory) under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians." A very important point - I think one or two sentences about the British involvement with the Assyrians prior to the Sayfo is actually essential background.
- Do you know any good sources on this? I can't find any and Bloxham's book says virtually nothing about Assyrians that's not already covered. I know there were American, French, and British missionaries; is there a reason the British were most important?
- "According to Gaunt, the Sayfo should be considered among other settler genocides that sought the elimination of the original inhabitants to redistribute land to a different population." I'm unable to verify this I think. It's not in Gaunt's chapter (p. 245 onwards) and it's not on p. 331, which is cited. In general, I find the focus on Turkification and settler colonialism as a motive for Sayfo in this paragraph a bit bizarre and undue. The areas populated by the Assyrians weren't really very "desirable" areas and unlike the properties of the Armenians, they mostly weren't repopulated by Turks. Yalçın (2009) quotes Dündar in a comment that is general about the repopulation of Christian villages with muhacirs, that shouldn't be understood as specifically applying to the Assyrians. And again I don't think Gaunt really substantiates his resettlement argument in the 2015 paper either, the whole paragraph is vague ("The order to resettle the Nestorians of Hakkari was one step within this greater scheme"), and as I said I think the article relies a bit too much on Gaunt's analysis of events already - this might be a good place to cut down on it unless other researchers explicitly agree with him on this.
- --GGT (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- It does show up on page 331 of the version I consulted. The argument is more that they were mostly killed by other locals (not primarily Turks) with less involvement from the government. Although their land wasn't the most desirable, my understanding is it was indeed taken over by other people (although mostly not muhacir) after the Sayfo. Locally driven violence and land appropriation is typical of settler genocides (eg. see Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies.) However, I don't feel strongly about including this particular language, so removed
Comments by Ovinus
Will get reviewing in a moment. Thanks for your important work as always. Ovinus (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- First sentence – I'm pretty sure MOS says to avoid slashes. (Sorry to be the obsessive/pedant.) Is it because of the controversial terminology? I think that's a perfectly valid exception, but just want to make sure
- Yes, it's because the people may be called either Assyrians or Syriacs
- "irregulars" (twice) – too technical for a lead. perhaps "guerillas" or "paramilitaries", but I'd even prefer "independent fighters" or something
- Changed to "Ottoman forces" referring to both soldiers and irregulars
- "were not part of the genocide" – Clarify whether they were not part of his order specifically or the ensuing genocide in practice
- The latter, clarified
- "Local actors played a larger role for local actors than the Ottoman government" – I do not understand this sentence
- "Local actors played a larger role than the Ottoman government", fixed
- "this is rejected by Turkey" – Also say that Turkey denies the Armenian genocide, which is quite relevant I think
- "collective identity such as the Armenian national movement" – maybe "analogous to" ?
- "similar to"
- "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population" – were or are?
- The source is discussing past estimates
- "The first mass violence targeting Assyrians was in the 1940s ... killing several thousands during the 1840s" – I assume you mean 1940s, and probably remove the second date
- 1840s, fixed
- "During intertribal feuds, most violence was directed at Christian villages under the "protection" of the opposing tribe." – I assumed "most" was considered over Christian villages, so I rephrased, but rv if that's not right
- Not sure what you mean
- Never mind, I confused myself
- Not sure what you mean
- "realize Pan-Turanism" – define or remove
- Removed
- "Turkify" – I remember this word was used in Armenian genocide, but just to confirm, RS use this word?
- Cited source says "Talât developed a scheme of demographic engineering that would also enable the Turkification of those refugees who were not already Turkish speaking."
Really sorry to do this, but I'm too tired to get through the rest of the article atm. It's pretty dense stuff for someone who has trouble following key events and people. Back with Armenian genocide there were just a lot less people and places to remember, plus a very helpful map. But I'm not sure if this is something that can be fixed without degrading the encyclopedic quality of the article. Ovinus (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ovinus yeah I understand and thanks for reviewing what you did review. Unfortunately the Sayfo is less centralized than the Armenian genocide and therefore more people and places to keep track of. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- At first glance, there are a lot of WP:duplinks throughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[36]
- "Terms for Syriac Christians such as Assyrian, Syriac, Aramean, and Chaldean" These names should all be linked here at their first mention, no? Now they are first linked under second mention in the background section.
- I don't think that would be helpful. The terminology article explains the use of these terms, which are not synonymous with the names or the membership of the churches.
- Link Ottoman Empire at first mention in article body.
- Done
- "speaking of an 'Assyrian Genocide' is anachronistic" I think we need to know what the alternative is here then, a general Christian genocide?
- Gaunt doesn't propose an immediate alternative and does not buy into the idea of a general Christian genocide. Since the localized killings in different areas occurred for different reasons, one potential argument is that there's more than one Assyrian genocide (although I haven't seen this in RS)
- "In Neo-Aramaic" Could be explained in parenthesis that is is the language spoken by these ethnicities, now there is no context.
- done
- "The people now called Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean, who historically spoke Aramaic languages, converted to Christianity in the first centuries CE" Would it be more accurate to say they are descendants of people who converted to Christianity, as their modern supposed self-identities would otherwise be retroactively applied to their ancestors, who we do not know identified as what?
- Rephrased
- Perhaps also specify these were people native of West Asia/Near East/Asia Minor/whatever works.
- Done
- Link Middle Eastern Christian?
- Done
- Link Nestorians
- Done
- "Unlike the Syriac population of Tur Abdin, many of these Syriacs spoke other languages." Unclear what is meant by this. What language did those of Tur Abdin speak, and what did the others speak?
- non-Aramaic languages (eg. Kurdish, Armenian, Arabic)
- Link World War I at first mention.
- Done
- "Although the Kurds and Assyrians were well-integrated" With each other or with the Ottoman Empire?
- the former, clarified
- Link Russian Empire.
- Done
- "tried to enlist Caucasian" Link to Caucasus or similar to avoid confusion.
- done
- Link Persian at first mention.
- done
- "confiscated from populations deemed unreliable" Perhaps specify they were unreliable to the empire, I was unsure who the CUP worked under at first read.
- done
- Link Turkify.
- Done
- "The goals of the population replacement were to Turkify the newcomers" Who are the newcomers, Muslims from other areas? Perhaps state specifically that these were of non-Turkish ethnicities, if that's the case?
- Some but not all the Balkan Muslims were non-Turkish (ie. Slavic-speaking, Albanian etc.) The source doesn't go into detail here though
- "expelled from the Lizan valley" To where? And where were Christians generally expelled to?
- It's not clear where they went, probably other Assyrian areas. There weren't a significant number of other Christians living in the Lizan valley at this time.
Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Link Sunni Muslim.
- Done
- "clearly related to the extermination orders from Constantinople" You don't mention extermination orders earlier, would seem the question of whether there were such orders could be dealt with in more detail, now it seems like a strong claim with little backing in-text.
- Removed since the source doesn't elaborate and other sources don't specify whether the killings were ordered from Constantinople or decided by local CUP leaders (or lean towards the latter interpretation)
- "a collection of eyewitness reports" Reports about what?
- fixed
- "The CUP government reversed its position on the Hamidiye regiments" Reversed from what? Until now, you have only stated they cooperated with the Ottoman authorities.
- Done
- "many Christian men were drowned in the river." The article body doesn't seem to state this anywhere? Image captions should preferably not have unsourced information not covered in the article body.
- Removed
- Halfway trough the article, you seem to switch from calling them Assyrians to Syriacs. If there is no particular reason for this, it might be better to be consistent.
- This because self-identified Assyrian identity is less common for the (descendants of the) mainly Syriac Orthodox population of Diyarbekir.
- "The killers began separating Armenians and Syriacs in early July, only killing the former" Regardless of their obvious role, it seems a bit blunt and informal to just refer to them as "the killers".
- Changed to perpetrators
- "militiamen were caught attempting to plant arms in a Syriac Catholic church in Mardin to justify the planned massacres" I don't understand the logic of this. How does an explosion in a church justify killing Christians?
- Not bombs, arms as in firearms. although source isn't explicit about the type of weapon. They weren't trying to blow up the church but rather "find" weapons there to "prove" that Christians were plotting a rebellion. Clarified
- "Those who refused to convert to Islam was murdered" Were murdered.
- Fixed
- "The city's Syriac Orthodox made a deal with authorities and were spared" What did the deal entail?
- It's not known exactly what kind of deal, but it apparently involved payment of a bribe, release of Syriac Orthodox notables and their subsequent declaration of support for the government (Gaunt 2006, pp. 171–172)
- "Islamicized Syriacs (primarily women) were left behind; their Kurdified (or Arabized)" Link "ized/ified" terms.
- Done
- "becoming landless agricultural laborers or (later) and urban underclass" Do you mean "an urban underclass"? Otherwise, it's a kind of odd sentence.
- Fixed
- "In 2000, Syriac Orthodox priest Yusuf Akbulut was secretly recorded by journalists saying: "At that time it was not only the Armenians but also the Assyrians [Süryani] who were massacred on the grounds that they were Christians". The journalists gave their recording to Turkish prosecutors" You should specify if he lived in Turkey.
- Done
- The intro could mention that the Assyrians fought back in some cases, now it looks like they were just passively exterminated?
- Done
- Support - nice work, and while a difficult subject, I hope it will attract more reviewers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Coordinator comment - at over a month in with only a single general support, this nomination is liable to be archived after a couple days without significant further movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "experienced war between Kurdish tribes and their Assyrian allies". This is confusing. It appears to say that allies were fighting each other.
- Rephrased
- "The first major schism in Syriac Christianity dates to 410, when Christians in the Sassanid Empire (Persia) formed the Church of the East to distinguish themselves from the official religion of the Roman Empire." This is a bit confusing as you say that the beakaway from the religion of the Roman Empire was a split in Syriac religion. If you mean that the West Syriac church sided with the Romans but later broke away from the Catholics and Orthodox you should say so.
- Clarified
- "Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountain". I do not think it makes sense to speak of a tribe ruling.
- Rephrased
- "interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire" Which foreign powers?
- European ones
- "the loss of the Balkan Wars" This is ungrammatical and unclear. Who were the parties to the war and who won?
- the Ottomans lost the war (clarified this). Who they were fighting against (Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania) is not important to this article.
- "deemed unreliable to the empire". This is ungrammatical. Maybe disloyal to the empire?
- Done
- "deportation of the Christian population" deportation to where?
- That's a complex question and it's partly addressed in the remainder of the article. I don't think it would be possible to explain in this paragraph.
- "Mar Shimun sent Malik Khoshaba and bishop Mar Yalda Yahwallah from Barwari to Tabriz in Persia to request urgent assistance from the Russians" Why to Persia? What was the relationship between Russian and Persia? (If I have not missed your explanation)
- Mentioned Russian occupation of northeastern Persia, which predated the war, at an earlier point in the article.
- "There were no missionaries in the Salmas valley to protect Christians" Why should missionaries have been able to protect the Christians?
- Reordered paragraphs as this question is addressed in the other paragraph (the attackers were reluctant to target missionary compounds)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Half of the second convoy, which departed on 12 June, was massacred when messengers from Diyarbekir announced that the non-Armenians had been pardoned by the sultan" This seems a non-sequitur.
- Clarified timing (the massacre occurred before the arrival of the envoy)
- "discouraged discussion of the Sayfo in fear of reprisals from the Turkish government". "for fear" would be better.
- Done
- This appears to be a sound article so far as a reviewer with no knowledge of the subject can judge. The locations mean nothing to me, but this would apply to any reader who does not have a specialist knowledge of the geography and I doubt whether there is any easy solution.
- My main query is about the word "Assyrian". This would usually mean the the ancient empire, and I think you should spell out the meaning in a twentieth-century context. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by SnowFire
Just a few comments. (I read the whole article but my comments are only on the earlier parts.)
- "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population"
- I get the gist of this, but if we're being nitpickers - shouldn't this be "precise", or "precise and accurate"? Accurate merely means correct, and somebody's surely made an accurate guess if they are sufficiently vague as well ("between 0 and 3 million"). More generally, I suspect this is really talking about poor Ottoman record-keeping, so maybe "no contemporary estimates" or "no official organized estimates" for other alternatives? Will defer on wording here, I realize that a two-sentence side note explaining that nobody at the time made very good estimates would blunt the focus.
- "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of European powers interfering in the Ottoman Empire under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians. This imperialism put the Ottoman Christians at risk of retaliatory attacks. "
- This doesn't seem to be referenced? I checked Bloxham's book from the sources and can't find him talking about this specifically. Is this in the Gaunt reference (which isn't easily publicly available) where Gaunt is citing some other work by Bloxham? I guess you already mentioned to GGT that Bloxham's book doesn't cover much not already described, but in "Interlude: The Genocide in Context", he has two paragraphs discussing the Assyrian genocide, and in "Interlude: New Minority Questions in the New Near East", he talks about the 1933 Iraqi attacks on Iraqi Assyrians. He doesn't really talk about imperialism in either - he does mention that the Assyrians threw their lot in with the Entente, but also makes clear this was their choice. If it's not clear where Gaunt is citing this from, I'd be careful with this phrasing and attribute it to Gaunt instead. Also, assuming this is indeed claimed by someone, I'm not a fan of the wording. "Pretext" makes it sound like the Entente was led by cynical, secular types who merely used Assyrian Christians as an excuse. Some of the leadership thought this way, but many more seem to have been deadly serious. France thought they were avenging the Crusader states and the Gallic Kingdom, the British had plenty of evangelical true believers, Russia wanted to reclaim Constantinople on religious grounds, and so on. They really did consider the fate of Middle Eastern Christians important, if in a paternalistic way. (This is not exactly a good thing, of course, it explains a lot of the foolish decisions made.. but "neo-crusaders" is different from "it's just an excuse"). Without being able to see the source to know for sure, I suspect a more general "credible fears of invasion worsened inter-religious relations" slant would be better. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know the difference between precision and accuracy and picked this wording because I felt it best summarized the source. There are some precise counts of subsets of the prewar population (i.e. "One count of the “Assyrians”—probably referring only to the Nestorians—in the districts of Hakkari, Bohtan, and Iranian Urmia cites 594 villages and hamlets, with 38,148 households.") just not complete or accurate ones of the entire population that concerns us; the numbers that exist "At best... give approximations"
- Bloxham doesn't say this specifically about Assyrians as much but Ottoman Christians in general, hence the wording. You could probably get this from reading his book overall and it's certainly supported by the cited source: "Another macro-level idea comes from Donald Bloxham, who emphasizes the dangerous interference of Great Power rivalry as a background to genocide. The nineteenth century’s so-called Great Game rivalry between Russia, Britain, Germany, Austria, and France for influence over the declining Ottoman Empire destabilized that empire, even when the intervention was intended as help. The Great Powers became increasingly involved in the condition of the non-Muslim minorities and what is today called their human rights. Their involvement included plans for grabbing territory under the premise of protecting the non-Muslims. With the connivance of Ottoman officials, this interference put the minorities at risk of retribution." I don't want to attribute to Gaunt since he is clear that it's Bloxham's idea. The Western influence on Assyrians is well known and covered in other sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- On "accurate": If you think there's no other wording that works, fair enough. I stand by my comment before but recognize as noted that explaining in detail everything would dull the focus and hurt concision.
- On Bloxham: I couldn't see Gaunt's source, but if that's what he writes, fair enough. I would suggest changing "pretext" to "premise" to match the source, though, since "pretext" has a somewhat different implication here. SnowFire (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was Kaiser's 2014 book on Diabekir that I'd requested, yes. Didn't read all of it, but read a decent amount, the cited pages from the article, and the whole Conclusion chapter, and the references check out. (Okay, with one minor question: why is "Reshid also replaced Midyat governor Nuri Bey with the hardline Edib Bey in July 1915" citing page 290 as well? It's cited in the other page range, though, so it's not really a big deal. Did that sentence used to also talk about economic damage, which is what is discussed in p. 290?)
- Sometimes I cite multiple pages if the content is confirmed in different places.
- I will make an optional suggestion: yes, they're wikilinked, but I would consider glossing some of the Ottoman-specific terms for the benefit of a broad audience the first time they're used outside the lede. So vilayet (province), sanjak (district), etc. I also might suggest optionally that "district governor" be used by default in text and glossed as "mutasarrif" on introduction rather than the other way around (Kaiser simply uses "governor" and it doesn't seem like the Ottoman office is particularly different than "governor"?). Might make the article a bit less "dense" as Ovinus put it above, no need to use untranslated terms.
- Done
- As a minor clarification - I suspect the term "vilayet" is important enough to still include directly, even if potentially glossed more aggressively (would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise, as I've been recently editing some articles that use "vilayet" myself). It was more mutasarrif and maybe sanjak that just replacing is better. Of course, as stated before, up to you, but don't feel obligated to hide "vilayet" on my account. SnowFire (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done
- One other nit, although unrelated to Kaiser's book: In "Exile in Iraq", there's the line "They worked for the British as mercenaries in Mandatory Iraq". I don't have access to Gaunt 2020 but "mercenaries" is a misleading phrasing that suggests soldiers of fortune looking to make a buck or the like. "Soldiers" is fine. (The Assyrians, like many minorities the British Empire recruited, thought they'd be safer by openly allying with the British and thus having the right of carrying arms just in case. Didn't work in the long-term, of course.)
- Done
- Support (although please still consider the remaining nitpicks).SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version.
- In a handful of cases there's no "p." or "pp." in the citation: [3], [212], [220], [221], [228], [236], [239], [240] & [270].
Some of the chapters are missing page ranges: Gaunt (2013), Tamcke, Yalcin, and Yuhanon.Hellot-Bellier is missing issue information. So is Gaunt, but there I see you're using cite web, which seems reasonable for that one.
That's everything I can see -- sources are reliable, and all links work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Christie The openedition journals open access mode doesn't display page number, but they do show paragraph number. I use the loc= parameter for the paragraph number which actually is more verifiable than the page since paragraphs are shorter.
- Added pp.
- For Hellot-Bellier, there is no volume number, only an issue number.
Two struck. For the remaining point, I don't understand how that works. E.g. footnotes [3] and [5] both refer to Gaunt 2010; the latter has a "pp." indication and the former does not. When I go to the external link for that article, I don't get taken to a particular paragraph or page. I can see there's no page number, so I take your point there, but how do I find the paragraph number and what am I looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Right, the Gaunt article unlike Hellot-Bellier doesn't have paragraph numbers either. At one point I was able to access the pages for this source, but then I needed to cite it again and forgot how to access the page numbers. Now added. (t · c) buidhe 16:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK -- looks good. I might suggest using "para." where one would otherwise put "p." in those cases, to help the reader understand what to look for, but that's optional. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Carlton Town F.C.
- Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Fixed.
- Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done.
- File:Carlton_Town_FC_logo.png: second source link is dead
- Fixed.
- File:ArthurClamp.jpg: if the photographer is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
- Removed this image to cut down on clutter. I can't prove anything, but presuming the photographer was an adult of 18, and the latest this photo could've been taken is 1915, he'd have been 95 in 1992.
- File:SneintonFC1926.jpg: the given US tag relies in part on the image being PD in country of origin on the URAA date, but there's also a tag indicating that it may not be PD in country of origin - that is contradictory
- Fixed.
- Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, fixed now I believe.
- Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- This tag seems to indicate it would not have been PD on the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I'm struggling a bit with this. Is the issue that the image was created in and not prior to 1926? If so, is it just a case of keeping it locally uploaded to Wikipedia under the UK rules (prior to 1952) and revoking its candidacy for Commons? Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately uploading locally would require US public domain, not UK. The image was created in 1926 but per the image description wasn't published until nine years later - is there another reason why it would be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fear not. I've removed the image from the article on the probability of it being non-free, which is a bit of a shame. Would just like to get this over the line now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria:: how's that? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria:: how's that? Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fear not. I've removed the image from the article on the probability of it being non-free, which is a bit of a shame. Would just like to get this over the line now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately uploading locally would require US public domain, not UK. The image was created in 1926 but per the image description wasn't published until nine years later - is there another reason why it would be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I'm struggling a bit with this. Is the issue that the image was created in and not prior to 1926? If so, is it just a case of keeping it locally uploaded to Wikipedia under the UK rules (prior to 1952) and revoking its candidacy for Commons? Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This tag seems to indicate it would not have been PD on the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, fixed now I believe.
- Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- File:SneintonCricketClubandGround1920.png: is this CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- PD, I believe. Fixed.
- Thanks, @Nikkimaria: I hope that clears things up. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please let me know if there's anything else, @Nikkimaria: Curlymanjaro (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene
Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.
- "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
- Replaced with "its".
- Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
- Removed.
- "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
- Done.
- "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
- Done.
- The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
- Done.
- Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
- Not that I could ascertain from scouring the British Newspaper Archive, but more on this point later.
- a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
- Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
- "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
- The club, I think. Deleted!
- "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
- Done.
- Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
- Done.
- I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
- This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
- "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
- Clarified (I hope).
- Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
- Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
- I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.
Really appreciate you looking at this @Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Eem dik doun in toene: what do you reckon to the improvements? I had to get slightly creative with sources for Carlton's rivalries, but since these are informal affairs at a low level of competition, I hope that's acceptable. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "its early years were [...] described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club"" - that doesn't work grammatically, Suggest "its early years were marked by considerable local success, leading to the club being described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club""
- Done.
- "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, participating" - again, it wasn't the reputation that participated. Suggest "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, with the team participating"
- Done.
- "Carlton has played its home games" - it's the team rather than the club as a singular entity that plays games, so here it should be treated as plural
- Done.
- "Sneinton moved to sign more “promising amateurs of the city”" - why is that last part in quote marks? Who is it a quote from?
- A nameless newspaperman. Since I've cited the source I might as well shorten the sentence and remove quote marks.
- "Sneinton, "by no manner of means", insisted" - literally no idea what this means, can you clarify?
- It means they weren't wealthy. Reworded.
- "paid for the team's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2" - the team is plural, not singular
- Done.
- Refs after "annual profit" are not in numerical order
- Fair enough, happy to change that. Previously, I've been instructed to order according to where the cited info is placed within the sentence.
- Remove the redlink on Trent Rangers as this club is not notable and never going to have an article
- Done.
- "returning to the Sneinton district after a season away" - why? Where did they play the previous season?
- Its unclear in my source. I suppose its connected to general disruption after Carlton dissolved because of the war, but I can't say for sure.
- "being noted as "much-improved"" - by whom?
- Clarified.
- "Eager "to progress beyond the confines of local parks football"" - again, who is this is a quote from?
- The NPL. Easier just to change into straight prose.
- "joined the Central Midlands Football League at the twelfth tier of the league system" - the CML Premier Division was level 11 back in 1995, not 12
- Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
- With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @ChrisTheDude: I hope I've reflected this. Curlymanjaro (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
- "Notwithstanding a "reasonable" first season" - reasonable according to whom
- Removed quote marks.
- ""In a desperate quandary"," - again, who is this quote from?
- NPL again. Bit journalistic so replaced.
- "Sneinton's third-place finish in the eleventh tier in 2000–01" - tenth tier at that point
- See other CML comment.
- "if not for "ground grading issues" negating this opportunity." - ground grading issues is a perfectly standard term, so no reason to present it as a quote
- Wasn't aware of this before. Removed.
- "guarantee a valid promotion should it be achieved" - really weird wording. Maybe "make the team eligible for promotion if they finished in an appropriate league position"
- Done.
- "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by entering its third round" => "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by reaching its third round" as otherwise it sounds like they just went straight in at the third round
- Done.
- "playoff semi-final, losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels" => "playoff semi-final, Carlton losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels"
- Done.
- "Finishing ninth in 2009–10, Brookbanks" - it wasn't Brookbanks who finished ninth
- Done.
- Refs after "red and white mix for 2021–22" in wrong order
- Done.
- Same after "before its collapse in 2011, Gedling Town"
- Done.
- "Located on the Colwick Lawn Estate [...] he led" - it wasn't the ground that led this
- Done.
- "becoming the home of Parliament Street Methodists" - again, this non-notable team is never going to have an article so remove redlink
- Done.
- Refs after "requiring a relocation of the pitch within the premises" again in wrong order
- Done.
- "30 carparking spaces" - I don't think "carparking" is a single word
- Done.
- I can't see any reason to have a References heading and then a Footnotes subheading right after it when there are no other sub-sections in that section
- That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thoroughness, @ChrisTheDude: once the CML tier-position thing is cleared up I should have addressed everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any improvements I can make to persuade you to support, ChrisTheDude? Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I forgot all about this. I don't have time to do a proper re-review tonight but will try to do so tomorrow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any improvements I can make to persuade you to support, ChrisTheDude? Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose (on 1a) Comments from BigDom
Sorry, but I felt I had to be honest. It's good to see a substantial article about a smaller club, but I think there are quite a few prose issues and it isn't at the required "professional standard" yet. Some of the word choices strike me as a bit strange (that's not necessarily a problem, everyone has their own style), but some bits I found a little confusing and had to read two or three times before I could work out what was meant. Here are a few things I've picked out (not exhaustive):
- "The Football Association (FA)" - the acronym "FA" is already used a sentence earlier. It only appears in competition names throughout the article anyway, so not convinced it is needed.
- Deleted.
- "the club became frustrated" - the players, the board, the supporters?
- Prose changed.
- "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park, returning to the Sneinton district after a season away." - I see this sentence has been mentioned above but reading the article as a newcomer it's not clear at all what is meant. Is it trying to say that the team had played elsewhere for a season (presumably 1947–48 and if so, where was it?), or that Colwick Wood Park is somewhere outside Sneinton (if so, where is it?)?
- The former. The problem is, my source doesn't say. We're talking about a local parks team in the late 1940s; quoting directly: "The Sneinton F.C. have secured new playing headquarters for the coming season. A return, after one season's absence, being made to the district of the club's origin ...". I wish I had more for you. I've changed the existing prose, anyhow.
- "finishing seventh in 1949–50 but with steady finances." - why "but"? Would a team finishing 7th not expect to have "steady" finances?
- Changed.
- "Avoiding relegation,[30] the club again transferred leagues ahead of 1969–70 to rejoin the Notts Alliance in its Division Two, being noted as "much-improved" by the Nottingham Football Post in 1976–77." - did avoiding relegation have anything to do with transferring leagues? Also, what happened in the years leading up to the improvement?
- I'm not sure on the first point, largely since the sources aren't very helpful. However, on the second, I've uncovered that Sneinton's first season in the division was a stinker. This could explain the "improvement" comment.
- "Sneinton eventually won the 1984–85 campaign" - "eventually" sounds like it took them a long time to win that particular season
- Removed.
- "satisfied both activities" => "met the needs of both"
- Changed.
- "leading to the appointment of a deputation in protest." - presumably it was the club protesting, not the Improvement Committee? Also, it reads as if "deputation in protest" is a single noun phrase.
- Correct. Changed.
- "contesting a season remotely" sounds rather odd - I would change this whole sentence to be honest. How about: After reforming in 1947, the club relocated to one of two public pitches at Colwick Wood Park in 1948, having played its matches in the intervening year at an alternative venue."?
- Changed.
- "In the early 1990s, the team moved to their current location on Stoke Lane in Gedling, dovetailing with Sneinton's competitive ambition to progress through the English league system." - dovetailing?
- Was probably better to remove the entire third clause of that sentence, to be honest.
- "That said" - not really encyclopedic tone.
- Changed.
- Source issue: what makes CBJStar a reliable source? It seems to be a student newspaper.
- It is. My only defence would be that, apparently, it was a story too insignificant for the bigger local papers; I see no reason or opportunity for the writer, even if they're a student, to get the presence of a youth academy suite wrong.
I really wanted to support this so would be happy to come back and reconsider once some work has been done on the prose. Good luck! BigDom (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking this over, @BigDom: doing an article like this is a poison chalice in some respects. The need is clearly there for better articles on smaller clubs, but finding information is often a flipping nightmare! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I understand it can be tough to get the information when it's an obscure topic like this. Thanks for addressing the points above, I still think the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet 1a though as well as some specific concerns:
- "Mixed fortunes followed as key players Arthur Clamp and Andrew Mosley joined Notts County, despite new tram infrastructure in the area promising improved attendance." is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. What's the connection between the players leaving and the trams arriving? Did the players leaving affect performances on the pitch? Did the improved tram infrastructure have any effect on attendances?
- I see what you mean. My sources are from when these events were unfolding, so it's hard to discern their actual impact beyond the immediate outlook for the club during the 1907–08 season. Any suggestions on rewording? I'm a bit stuck.
- "playing form suffered [...], losing several players" - the playing form didn't lose several players
- Fixed.
- "the club reformed on 29 April 1919" - there is no mention of the club disbanding so it's confusing to read that it reformed.
- Fixed.
- "finishing seventh in 1949–50 and with steady finances.[27] By 1965–66" - any information about the intervening 15 years? That paragraph in general is very sparse, covering around 45 years in under 200 words.
- Added a fair bit after some serious trawling. You'll no doubt want to look at the prose.
- "Notwithstanding a reasonable first season" - Chris mentioned this above too. Removing the quotes doesn't make it not an opinion, so again, reasonable according to whom?
- The NPL; I was trying to avoid mentioning it since Carlton hadn't been promoted to that tier yet. I could just delete that bit? Doesn't tell us terribly much anyway.
- "Runners-up and playoff semi-finalists in the division's 2011–12 contest,[36] League form dipped in the following seasons, finishing twelfth, tenth and eighteenth respectively." - I don't think this sentence is grammatical at all, there's no subject.
- Fixed.
- "Combined with poor tournament results in 2014–15 [...] McJannet resigned." - McJannet wasn't combined with poor results
- Fixed.
- "narrowly missing out on playoffs" - "[...] on the playoffs"
- Fixed.
- Club identity - this section is incomplete, there's no details about the club colours until "recent"ly (when?). When was the club crest introduced and has the club used any others before this one?
- I'll need a day or two to search the Wayback Machine on this point and the next. A very tricky section!
- Green's mill - nice, but where is the link between it and the club? (the "About Green's windmill" page linked doesn't mention the club as far as I can see)
- Maybe worth giving inflation figures (e.g. how much is £300 in 1905 worth today)
- Fixed.
- "Conversely, 1935 saw the addition of another pitch" - why "conversely"? It doesn't disagree with the previous sentence.
- Fixed.
- Better, but note that MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting a sentence with figures.
- Fixed.
- Most of the article is written about the club in the third-person singular but a couple of times it drifts to third-person plural, e.g. in the lead "Carlton have played their home games" and in the Grounds section "moved to their current location". There may be others I missed.
- Good spot. The team/club distinction was brought up by "Eem dik doun in toene" above. I've tried to go "it/its" for club and "they/their" for team. What do you reckon?
- Refs: #35 - what makes Non-League Football Matters a reliable source (it might be, I haven't come across it before but I haven't written much about non-league). #47 is a fan blog, which I don't think would count as reliable.
- The league tables on it follow pretty seamlessly from those found on the British Newspaper Archive. Also, I'd say its self-identification as an "independent football history information site" is about equivalent to the status of the Football Club History Database. Fan blog deleted and rival team replaced.
- "Mixed fortunes followed as key players Arthur Clamp and Andrew Mosley joined Notts County, despite new tram infrastructure in the area promising improved attendance." is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. What's the connection between the players leaving and the trams arriving? Did the players leaving affect performances on the pitch? Did the improved tram infrastructure have any effect on attendances?
- Hope these are useful. BigDom (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again, @BigDom: quite a lot to be getting on with here but I hope we're getting closer. I'll do some more digging on the "club identity" section before reporting back. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right, @BigDom: I've done my best with the "club identity" section after some further research. Alas, I still can't prove the Green's Mill connection in writing (despite, annoyingly, knowing it to be true in real life). Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Curlymanjaro: You've put some great effort into improving the article, really impressive. I've struck my explicit opposition although I can't quite bring myself to support. I'm still not convinced the prose is quite of a "professional standard" per WP:FA?#1a and it still feels a little incomplete (for example, no information about club colours/kits before 2003) for #1b. I understand though that this may just be the nature of writing about such an obscure topic and am not sure whether it could ever be overcome. Good work overall, though! BigDom (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right, @BigDom: I've done my best with the "club identity" section after some further research. Alas, I still can't prove the Green's Mill connection in writing (despite, annoyingly, knowing it to be true in real life). Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again, @BigDom: quite a lot to be getting on with here but I hope we're getting closer. I'll do some more digging on the "club identity" section before reporting back. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand it can be tough to get the information when it's an obscure topic like this. Thanks for addressing the points above, I still think the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet 1a though as well as some specific concerns:
Coordinator comment - as this nomination has been open for well over a month and is not close to a consensus to promote, it will have to be archived in a couple days unless significant movement towards a consensus to promote occurs. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: of the three reviewers, we've got two supporting and one having reversed their opposition. How many more until you can pass? Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- A minimum of three supports is expected, although the coordinators have the ability to consider more than three needed. Formal source and image reviews are also required. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Hog Farm: I'm hopefully close to getting the image review passed. I believe I've satisfied every reviewer's specific qualms; I suppose it's just a case waiting for another user if three really is the bare minimum. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- A minimum of three supports is expected, although the coordinators have the ability to consider more than three needed. Formal source and image reviews are also required. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: of the three reviewers, we've got two supporting and one having reversed their opposition. How many more until you can pass? Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Just noting that I'm looking at closing this but have some reservations about the way the promotion in 2006-07 is worded in the second para of the lead. Might sleep on it and revisit tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Some more comments from ChrisTheDude
- I've made a few tweaks myself but the following could still do with looking oat.....
- "a near-undefeated run lasting close to three months" - how can you have a "near-undefeated run"? Surely a run is either undefeated or it isn't..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, ChrisTheDude. How's that? Curlymanjaro (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild - I supported about three weeks ago. I seem to have put it in a rather non-intuitive place TBF so apologies for that........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah - spotted it. Thanks CTD. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild - I supported about three weeks ago. I seem to have put it in a rather non-intuitive place TBF so apologies for that........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version. One minor inconsistency:
- You use publisher= in almost all your web citations; the omission is [53].
- Fixed.
Formatting looks good. One link to look at:
- The Pitchfinder archive link, [67], is not coming up for me.
- Fixed (hopefully).
One reliability question:
- [52] is a Pitchero site; as far as I can tell Pitchero is not inherently unreliable, but I can't tell if the page you're citing is written by a Pitchero writer or if this is a platform that Carlton Town fans use to write their own content, or something in between. If the writer is a Pitchero employee this is fine; is there evidence of that?
- Switched to a better source.
That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Mike Christie: I hope that's satisfactory! Curlymanjaro (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.
- Is the Notts Alliance League worth a redlink? How about the Notts Spartan League? The Notts Amateur League? The Nottingham Football Post?
- Aren't the sentences starting "In May 1905..." and "The team enjoyed success..." out of order? The success was achieved over the 1904-1905 season, wasn't it?
- "Sneinton regained the League championship in 1907–08...": we haven't said they didn't win in 1906-07, so I think this would be better as "Sneinton won the League championship again in 1907–08...".
- "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and the third round of the FA Amateur Cup, losing to Oxford City": this makes it sound as though Oxford eliminated them from both competitions. Assuming that's not the case, I suggest making this "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and losing to Oxford City in the third round of the FA Amateur Cup".
- "Conversely, the 1922–23 season returned mediocre form and poor finances, a trend repeated in subsequent years, sparing the team's joint-holding of the 1925–26 Notts Alliance Cup": at this point the article is listing significant seasons, not every season; what makes the 1922-23 season notable enough to mention? Is it the start of the downward trend? What happened during the 1921-22 season? And I don't think you can say the trend repeated; a trend starts and continues or stops; "repeated" implies another later trend. What does "poor finances" mean?
- I'm hesitant to delete this sentence outright as I'd rather avoid creating a decade-long hole in the article; I've switched some words around nevertheless.
- When the merged with Trent Rangers, what was the merged club's name?
- Sorry, the prose might be a little confusing here. The old Sneinton club reformed and essentially absorbed Trent Rangers, whose name ceased to exist. I've changed the wording a little, but let me know if it's still unclear.
- "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park": we haven't said where they played the previous season (Trent Rangers's ground?) so we can't say "vacated".
- "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post": I can't see the source, but it looks like this is a single article, whereas our article text makes it sounds like the criticism was kept up throughout the season. What does the source actually say?
- "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic".
- "The club had achieved promotion to Division Two by 1956–57": so we don't know exactly when the promotion happened? Are there offline sources that cover this sort of thing?
- Alas, I looked deep into the British Newspaper Archive for a precise season but that was the best I could do.
- "Bill Stokeld, appointed former players Tommy Brookbanks and Neil Cooper into management": business management? Team co-managers?
- I would move the content of note [a] into the body; it's necessary detail to explain the name change.
I'm going to pause there. I think the prose is not as good as it needs to be. Normally I'd oppose on prose, but I've done a copyedit of rather more substance than I would normally do at FAC; let me know if you think the changes are OK. If so I'll make another copyediting pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Mike Christie: I understand your concerns. Apart from specific difficulties (detailed above), I've implemented all of your suggestions. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The changes are definitely improvements. I'll make another pass through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
More:
Still thinking about "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post". You say the supporting cite is "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic". That sounds like it applies to a single game. If so, I'd make this something like "After a loss to Bakersfield in the 1951-52 campaign, the Nottingham Football Post commented that the team "appeared to be too individualistic".- Implemented.
"expiring after the 2006–07 season, Carlton's first logo comprised a blue and white football on which black text with a yellow shadow, reading "Carlton Town FC", was wrapped diagonally": what exactly happened with the logo? They decided they didn't like it? Or are we just deducing it was abandoning because it's no longer on the kit or on club publications?- The latter. Confirmation of the badge's use in 2006–07 and the introduction of the new one for 2007–08.
- I see that this shows no logo for that season, but I don't think we can cite that as proof no logo existed -- they just hadn't given it to the NCEL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The latter. Confirmation of the badge's use in 2006–07 and the introduction of the new one for 2007–08.
- Fair comment. Now reflected. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
"Though the club sought away matches as early as October 1904, May 1905 saw Sneinton reside at the Sneinton Cricket Club and Ground on Colwick Road": This doesn't make it clear exactly what happened, though I'm aware that may be because you're relying on fragmentary sources. Is May 1905 just the date of their first home match? Or is there other evidence that that's when they gained use of the ground?- May 1905 is when they gained use of the ground. Made this clear now.
That's it for a second pass. I did more copyediting; let me know if anything looks wrong as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your patience, @Mike Christie: how's it looking? Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- One more question above, then I'll read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Reading through again:
"In 1957–58, the team's goal-scoring record led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months." This is a bit vaguely phrased. I can't see the source, but would it support "In 1957–58, the team's prolific goal-scoring led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months."? That would be more direct."Division reorganised and renamed; reprieved from relegation due to ground grading issues at A.F.C. Mansfield" is only in the table: might be worth mentioning this in the body of the article.
This is getting close now; just these two points this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Suggestions adopted. Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)