A battle from the misnamed Third English Civil War with which the English finally broke the Scots defences and subsequently overran Scotland. There was a ridiculous brew of politics and religion behind the scenes for both sides, especially the Scottish, which I have attempted to capture. An article I have been working on for nearly six months and which I believe I have got to FA standard. Of course, other opinions may be available ... Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marking my spot here. At first glance, there seem to be more name and places that could be linked in image captions? FunkMonk (talk)
"Battle of Inverkeithing II" What is the significance of the "II"?
That is the Historic Environment Scotland reference, so you really need to ask them. Their overview starts "The second battle of Inverkeithing is ..." but I can find no trace anywhere of what nor when the first battle was.
"After a protracted political struggle, the Engagers" These have not been presented, you only mention "an offer known as the Engagement" earlier. Is there a way to connect the two, by stating the Engagement spawned a movement or similar?
Good point. Clarified. ("the supporters of the Engagement".)
"and the faction opposed to the Engagement was able to regain control of the government, with the assistance of a group of English parliamentary cavalry led by Cromwell" So this was achieved militarily or how? A bit ambiguous with the current wording.
Removed "with the assistance of a group of English parliamentary cavalry led by Cromwell". It is too much detail and only snuck in because I was seduced by the coincidence of Cromwell being the cavalry commander.
"Exasperated by the prolonged bloodshed, the New Model Army purged the English Parliament" State it was Parliamentarian? This is not clear from the article, I had to look it up at the army's article.
D'oh! Replaced "New Model Army" with 'Parliamentarian army'.
"Leslie prepared a defensive line of earthworks between the Scottish capital Edinburgh and Leith,[40] employed a scorched earth policy from there to the Scottish border[39] and allowed Cromwell to advance unopposed." Should there be a comma after border?
No. (Only if one employs Oxford commas and ignores Lynn Truss's opinion on commas. I do neither. The link is courtesy of Mike.)
"Their main force encamped on the all but invulnerable Doon Hill" Whose main force? A bit hard to deduce from the preceding sentence, "The Scottish army outflanked the English, blocking the road to Berwick and England at the easily defended Cockburnspath Defile".
Another good point - I get too close to this stuff. Tweaked.
Perhaps this[2] cropped version of the Cromwell at Dunbar painting would look better (without the borders).
I created that crop, so I have no idea why I didn't use it! *rolly eyes*
Haha, didn't notice that! Perhaps that version could use some tweaks to remove the grey tint and improve contrast? I can do it, if you're ok with it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did it (it's an automatic function in Photoshop, so it wasn't up to my preferences), I think it looks quite a bit better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks cracking. Thank you.
I find myself mentally cringing over the religiously-motivated blunders of the Scots again and again, I guess that's a sign of engaging writing! Perhaps significant enough to mention in the intro?
Flatterer. At if you get into the details, it actually gets worse. Done.
"Cromwell issued contingency orders as to what measures to take if this were to occur" Pardon my potential ignorance, but shouldn't that be "was to occur"?
I get confused about this. "was" sounds wrong to me, but changed to, on the grounds that you are more likely to know what you're doing than me.
My thinking was that "this" would refer to an invasion, which is singular. But as you now, I'm certainly no expert on the English language... FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the logic, and can't argue it. It still doesn't sound right, but what do I know? I will leave it as "was"; it is either correct, or if not I can blame you.
"The Scottish Covenanter government was abolished, and the English commanders imposed military rule" Anything on how long that lasted? And was this the end of Scottish military autonomy?
We may be getting off topic, but I have added some stuff to the bottom.
I think it's good for context, as I was wondering what all this lead to.
Fair enough. That's what reviewers are there for. (Among other things, obviously.)
I'll do a more thorough review, but on first inspection a couple of thoughts:
Should the first paragraph of the lead be more focussed? At present the first two sentences are about the battle, then it has two sentences about the situation which led to the invasion. Might those latter two sentences be split off or merged with the next, and a bit more about the battle added to the first paragraph, perhaps briefly touching on Lambert's objectives and the significance of the battle?
Yeah, well, there is certain information which has to go into the first sentence or two, so there is frequently a chronological discontinuity immediately afterwards. I see where your suggestion is coming from and have tried to draft something to follow it, but I end up with "the battle and what Lambert was trying to do, but with no context for the latter", jumping back to "the campaign giving the context for the landing and battle", followed by jumping back again to "the deep context and reasons for the war", followed by a "summary of the aftermath". Which really doesn't work at all.
The requirement to, effectively, do a summary of the summary in the first one or two sentences is the problem.
I have re-paragraphed, which give a very short and a very long paragraph, but each which is now individually more coherent. IMO. See what you think.
That's better, I think.
I also note that the lead doesn't link to Inverkeithing anywhere; it links to North Queensferry where the English landed, but it doesn't actually specify where the battle took place, perhaps something could be added?
Indeed. The battle was named after the nearest settlement, no part of it took place in Inverkeithing. Or, if it did, none of the sources mention it. The sources hardly mention Inverkeithing at all, and it was a bit of a struggle to get a natural sounding mention of it into the main article.
I Had thought "and landed at North Queensferry. The Scots sent forces to pen the English in, and the English reinforced their landing. On 20 July the Scots moved against the English and in a short engagement were routed." made the location reasonably obvious, but I could be more specific if you think it would be helpful.
I wonder if the initial 'summarising the summary' paragraph could be expanded slightly and improved by mentioning the location? Something along the lines of 'The battle was fought on land between the settlements of North Queensferry and Inverkeithing, for which it is named' or something like that?
I'm not sure there was a settlement at South Queensferry at the time. I can't source it anyway. How is what I have come up with?
In the aftermath section: "Charles and Leslie could not resist the lure of England". This is sourced to Woolrych, but I don't think it really properly represents his description of the events - he has a demoralised, half starved and under-resourced Scottish army, which Leslie knew could not possibly challenge Cromwell, making a desperate bid to reach England in the hopes of raising Roylist support and being able to threaten London. I'm not sure 'unable to resist the lure' quite gets that across?
State of the Royalist army: "a demoralised, half starved and under-resourced Scottish army". I am not seeing this in Woolrych. The closest I can find refers to mid-May "he was having great difficulty in feeding even them." More explicit descriptions of the state of the army, from Woolrych or elsewhere, would be welcome. I do currently have "cutting off the Scottish army from reinforcements, provisions and materiel". I could add the bit about the shortage of muskets causing some men to be armed with bows if you want?
Re "lure": quite right, I skipped referencing that sentence, apologies. I could, with two RSs, but as I don't think you would like that I have concentrated on the "desperation" aspect.
What you've got now definitely tallies better with my understanding from last year's work, but I confess I was going on memory on Woolrych - perhaps that was from a different source. I'm happy with what's there now anyway.
Support after a proper read through - I'm happy with the changes made to address the points raised above, and can't see anything else jumping out at me as a problem. GirthSummit (blether)16:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"although the basic formation of the regiment varied greatly in size." - Is this variation between the two armies, or between regiments within the same army? It's not quite clear from the phrasing
Good spot. That was phrased really badly. Clarified. (I think/hope.)
It stands out to me that in the opposing forces section, the distances given are a mixture of feet converted into meters and meters converted into feet. Wouldn't it make the most sense to be consistent with which type of units (metric vs American) is the primary one given?
Different sources, talking about different things. But I take your point and all conversions now have the imperial measurement first.
We're given English cavalry tactics, what about Scottish cavalry tactics?
Have I over-summarised? I have unpacked it a little. Is that sufficient?
Pulling up my chair here. Starting with the background, will come back to lead once I have read the whole article.
Background
Scottish Kirk: seems a bit "jargony", the link goes to Church of Scotland. Presumably that is the more common name, why not use that text instead?
Actually, having read more of the article the Kirk is a useful shorthand for the Church of Scotland, I can see why you use it. Perhaps "Church of Scotland, known as the Kirk,..."? That gives the reader some initial context without then having to follow the link.
Good point. I think that I got to close to the sources. Amended as you suggest.
...and gained for the Scottish Parliament...: perhaps its just me, but the "gained" seems awkward. Could it not read "and gave the Scottish Parliament..."
Another good point. Gone with 'granted'. That OK?
Infantry
...although regiments in both armies varied greatly in size. the term "both armies" is used twice in close succession. Suggest this mention be amended to "although the English and Scottish regiments varied greatly in size."
Hog Farm was also unhappy about how I phrased this, so I have rewritten. It now reads "The regiment was the standard tactical unit, but their size was not standardised and varied greatly." Are you both content with that? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...New Model Army; leading it across the... the usage of the semi-colon doesn't seem right in this context, although admittedly I can't quite articulate why. Perhaps it is because it precedes a "present participle" (I had to google that term). I think it would be OK if it was made past tense, e.g. "New Model Army; he led it across the..."
Semi colon removed. Past tense used.
Its mentioned that Cromwell marched from Musselburgh but last the reader was informed, he was at Edinburgh. Suggest clarifying a little; perhaps he withdrew to Musselburgh after the failed attempt to draw out the Scottish forces?
Mention of Musselburgh removed. It is not necessary in an article dealing with events nearly a year later and, I think, only confuses a reader.
The Scots main force... possessive?
Good spot. Done
Battle of Dunbar
Notes 30, 51 are used twice in two successive sentences. Ditto note 59. Going back to previous sections, notes 10, 26 (twice), 39
Removed, but not [10]; this is only used twice, the second time in conjunction with another cite - to remove the first "[10]" would suggest that the first two sentences are also cited to [11].
access to north-east Scotland inconsistency with compass headings, hyphen here but not in previous section in regard to the coastal road running south west.
I don't hyphenate directions, hence "south west". But when used as a a compound modifier I hyphenate as I would any other a compound modifier, eg "pre-dawn attack", "Scottish-held territory" or "north-east Scotland". So it looks inconsistent, but it isn't. :-)
the English shipped the balance of their own force... suggest "the English shipped the balance of their forces..."
Done.
ordered his force to pull back. to avoid the repeated "force" from earlier in the sentence, suggest "ordered his men to pull back"
Done.
Aftermath
no issues spotted
Lead
Suggest a little tweak to the 2nd paragraph to point out to readers that North Queensferry is on the Ferry Peninsula, it seems to lack context otherwise. Maybe "...and landed at North Queensferry, on the Ferry Peninsula."
Done.
That's it for me. Sorry for the piecemeal approach here, I haven't been able to get in a lot of editing time for the past few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, Ealdgyth, @FAC coordinators: Hi guys, this nomination seems to be running smoothly. So far it has passed its source and image reviews and has four supports, including two from non-MilHist editors. So could I have permission to nominate the next one in my queue please. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With Landis's Missouri Battery and Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment already at FA, I'm shooting to complete the trifecta of Missouri Confederate military branches with an infantry unit. The 4th existed for about six months before being shredded at the Second Battle of Corinth and consolidated with another unit. It's somewhat nonstandard flag is held by a museum. This will likely be entered in the WikiCup if it passes. Hog FarmTalk04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly based on the ACR, but I also managed to check a few of the print sources, finding no issues with verifiability. (t · c) buidhe05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit more info here which I think is a reliable enough source, it says that 40 officers were surplus when the regiment was merged (t · c) buidhe05:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - I've added the detail about the 40 surplus officers. The Pea Ridge bit is somewhat problematic, as the 4th Mo. Infantry CSA did not exist at Pea Ridge (the 4th Mo. Regiment listed at Pea Ridge Confederate order of battle was a Missouri State Guard unit) and the source does not give enough detail to state which component unit of the future 4th Mo. Infantry CSA Sitton was part of. Hog FarmTalk21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, the source website does not say that the photograph is freely licensed. Tassels are somewhat three-dimensional so I think you would need a separate license for the photo. Personally, I would just use the svg version. (t · c) buidhe23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe - It's been removed. Not sure enough to nom it for deletion on Commons, and it's far from the most dubious image on Commons, so I'll probably let it be over there. Hog FarmTalk02:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Organized on April 28, 1862". Is there a reason for "Organized"? 'Raised', 'Formed' or 'Recognized' would seem more appropriate.
Switched to "formed", which is the word used in the body.
"The 4th Missouri Infantry's battle flag is displayed at the Museum of the Confederacy.". I am not sure this still exists. "In November 2013, the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar merged, creating the American Civil War Museum."
Changing the text references to the current name of American Civil War Museum. Essentially a rebranding. Although thanks for making me look into this, as I can now have a functioning link for the flag in collection citation - as late as last summer when I wrote this article, the collection website was still at the museum of the confederacy domain, but it's now at the current title. So I don't have to use the web archive there now.
"were of Anglo-Saxon descent." I don't think that link is helpful.
Removed
"At this time, Price was in command of the Army of the West". Optional: delete "At this time".
Done
"At Corinth, the 4th Missouri Infantry was in Green's brigade of Brigadier General Louis Hébert's division of Price's corps of the Army of West Tennessee". Bleh! Can we liven this up? 'At Corinth, the 4th Missouri Infantry made up part of Green's brigade, which was in Brigadier General Louis Hébert's division; Hébert's formation in turn was a component of Price's corps, in turn under the command of the Army of West Tennessee' or something?
Made an attempt, is this better?
"of Colonel Elijah Gates's brigade and Brigadier General Charles W. Phifer's brigade" → 'of Colonel Elijah Gates's and Brigadier General Charles W. Phifer's brigades'.
Done
"with the 30 remaining minutes of daylight and to wait for the morning of the 4th to resume the battle." Maybe something like 'as only 30 minutes of daylight remained; instead he waited for the morning of the 4th to resume the battle'?
Done
"with the objective of the attack being a fortification known as Battery Powell"> Delete "being".
Done
In the last paragraph of "Service history" "Moore's brigade" is used three times in three consecutive sentences. Any chance of some variety?
I've rephrased two out of three appearances
"ending the threat". What threat?
I've just removed those three words
In the first two sentences of "Legacy", "consolidated" occurs three times. Any chance of some synomyns?
Replaced one. The final one (in the unit title) is not replaceable.
"came to an agreement where McFarlane became colonel"> Should "where" not be 'whereby'?
Didn't know that. Done
"the Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Champion Hill, Battle of Big Black River Bridge". You need 'the' in front of each "Battle".
Done
"the Battle of New Hope Church, Battle of Kennesaw Mountain, Siege of Atlanta, Battle of Allatoona, and the Battle of Franklin." Ditto. And "Siege".
I've tweaked the link in the lead, which should have been to the CSA article. The link to Brig. Gen. in the body is to the USA link because it's linked to Union general Lyon. The body link to the generic Major General for Price is to the generic article because Price wasn't part of the CSA at that point.
Why would a Missouri regiment be formed in Tennessee only to be immediately moved elsewhere? You may not know...
It's hard to make this clear without stretching the sources with OR and SYNTH, but what's going on is that when the MSG forces with Van Dorn got shipped out of Arkansas across the Mississippi, apparently the ones that became this unit must have ended up in Memphis. As stated, the MSG people mostly joined the CSA, which is what happened in Memphis. There's some fairly heavy geographical and military reasons why Corinth was important, but all that really is due weight for this article is that the unit went to Corinth, where some stuff happened. The sources don't do a good job of tying all of the stuff into the formation of this unit, and I'm not how best to state all that beyond the MSG went east of the Mississippi and joined the CSA and that the 4th Mo. Inf. Regiment was formed from MSG units east of the Mississippi, and then transferred to another part of the front.
"A muster, carried out on May 5, " As the first date in the section, suggest adding a year
Done
I feel like there's a lot of detail about Iuka for a battle that the regiment didn't even participate in. Why not summarize it along the lines of "On September 19, Price fought 17,000 men under Major General Ulysses S. Grant, the Union commander in the region, in the Battle of Iuka."?
I've tried to trim this down in a way that I feel is both due weight and gives the reader and idea of the movements. Does this look acceptable?
"After escaping, Price joined Van Dorn," I'm not sure what was escaped from? The last I knew there was a battle where the confederates defeated one wing...
I think the new description of Iuka makes this clearer. Grant was explicitly trying to trap Price's army so it could be defeated in detail
"At 10:00 on October 3," in the morning? It's not clear what timeframe is being used
Clarified as a.m.. I prefer to use 24-hour time in military articles, but you're right, it's ambiguous here, and there's no other times to establish which clock system is being used
" although this attack was supported by elements" how does "although" fit in?
It doesn't. Rephrased.
" as only 30 remaining minutes of daylight" -> "as there were only 30 remaining of daylight" or "as only 30 minutes of daylight remained"?
Happy to Support now. You may want to re-add the date of Iuka for context. If you have a problem with a.m., you could probably get away with "in the morning". Nice work. Eddie891TalkWork01:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*Unengaged reads oddly to me. Perhaps something along the lines of present but did not see action? Or maybe just say that it was in reserve instead.
Done.
Clarify that the regiment was assigned to Green's brigade during 2nd Corinth. The current wording makes me wonder about that
Done, I think
Clarify that the 1865 surrender was at the end of the war for readers who might not know that. And combat tenure reads oddly
Rephrased on both points
Compress the first paragraph of the Background so that it's more focused on the circumstances just before the regiment was raised. I'd suggest cutting the 1861 info down to a sentence or two.
How about a compromise at three sentences? I think it's useful to introduce Price and the MSG there, as they are relevant in the history of the unit.
as only 30 remaining minutes of daylight Missing words?
Corrected as part of Eddie's comments.
clear line of attack Not sure what this means
Rephrased
Is there nothing available detailing the reg't's participation in the 1864–1865 battles? This is the basis of my oppose as this is a hole in the completeness criteria big enough to drive a truck through.
Yeah, but it won't be of particularly high quality. The museum holding the flag claims copyright (although it's probably PD) and has a watermark on the image. this grainy one is one of the better ones I can find. Everything else I can find seems to be people selling stuff embroidered with that pattern (probably because most online retailers don't let people sell well-known CSA flag patterns, so they go for the obscure ones), and some crappy .svg drawing that look a lot like the one already in the article. Hog FarmTalk23:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically all flags are 3D objects, but I think that that's generally ignored for copyright determinations. So, no, I don't think that it matters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article could do with a run through by a non-military history regular, to check that the language is sufficiently free of jargon and specialist terminology to be broadly comprehensible to a general audience. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - With four supports (including one non-MILHIST) and passed image and source reviews, could I get a dispensation for a second nomination? If not, I'm perfectly fine with waiting until this one closes. Hog FarmTalk07:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 1982 conference in Israel, the first major conference in the field of genocide studies, and attempts to cancel it by the Turkish government. Their objection? Scholars of the Armenian genocide were invited, a crime that is strenuously denied by Turkey to this day. Turkish diplomats blackmailed Israel by threatening the lives of Jewish refugees, but the organizers persevered and managed to hold it anyway. (t · c) buidhe23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The conference's mission was to further the understanding and prevention of all genocides." It may be a US/UK English thing, but it reads oddly to me that a conference should have a "mission" rather than an 'objective'.
Changed to "objective"
"However, the organizations refused". Which organizations? (The Institute?)
Changed to "organizers".
"faced criticism for their efforts to cancel the conference in contrast to the value of academic freedom". I know what you are getting at, but I am not sure this works as a sentence.
Rewrote
"a "determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust"" I am unsure what this means, and so cannot see how it is demonstrated by "prevent[ing] Jews from learning about the Armenian genocide".
I realized that this sentence is not necessary for reader understanding, so I removed it.
"appeared in the domestic public debate in Israel". Perhaps "was debated in public in Israel" would be more accessible?
Done
"in their refusal to remove the Armenians". Is it known who they were? Are their views known? It seems odd that they are first named several sections later.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, the sources specify that Wiesel and Charny agreed that they shouldn't under any circumstances exclude the Armenian participants from the conference. Details on the Armenians who presented at the conference are given later in the "Conference" section; I don't think that should be altered because RS don't describe them doing anything noteworthy related to the attempted cancellation, and I prefer to list all the participants in the same place. The Boghosian article states that, at the conference, several Armenian participants expressed gratitude to the organizers for not bowing to pressure; I could add it, but I thought that it was perhaps too obvious.
Hmm. OK. Optional: "Armenians" → "Armenian speakers".
"which is a top priority of the Israeli foreign ministry" Maybe "is" → 'was'?
Well, according to the source, it was then and still is a top priority (as of 2015); "was" would imply that isn't anymore.
"that they ensured no official Israeli participation" → 'that they ensured there was no official Israeli participation'.
Done
"proposed to delay it" → 'proposed delaying it'.
Done
"AJC". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression".
It is introduced earlier in the sentence but I clarified what the abbreviation refers to.
"withdrew at the last minute". Perhaps → 'also withdrew at the last minute'?
Done
"the conference represented the shift from", Suggestion only "represented" → marked' seems, to me, to better reflect the source.
Done
"Armenian–Armenian"?
Corrected to Armenian-American
"for Armenian Genocide recognition and academic freedom". If that is meant to be two separate things, I suggest a second 'for' before "academic".
Added
"examining the Holodomor, Tibet, Gulag, the Romani genocide, and the Cambodian genocide". This reads oddly to me. "Tibet to an extent, "Gulag" more so. "examining ... Gulag"? Perhaps 'the Gulag'? Although personally I would explain both Tibet and the Gulag a little more fully. (And in English.)
Added explanation
"Army Radio". A brief explanation (an Israeli Defence Force operated radio station[?]) linked to Army Radio would be more comprehensible.
For articles I try to use the same capitalization as used by the source. For example, this article is capitalized in the same way in the article as in the source. (t · c) buidhe20:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat unfavorably struck by the position of the paragraph about the Armenian genocide. I agree that that content belongs in the article, as the controversy about the conference isn't comprehensible without it; but I would strongly prefer to see it folded into the preparation section, which may need to be retitled; as things stand, the body of the article begins with content seemingly tangential, whose connection has yet to be established. Similarly, I would prefer if you could establish the relevance of that paragraph for any nitpickers by additionally citing any sources that discuss the armenian genocide in relation to the conference.
Integrated into the preparation section. Problem is that the sources that specifically focus on the conference simply assume that the genocide is a reality without going into detail, Auron and Baer books talk about the genocide at the very beginning of the book and the conference in a different section. (t · c) buidhe19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this flows much better. I think my initial concern with the Chorbaijan source was valid, because unless I'm mistaken it doesn't mention the conference; but I think the necessity for background about the Armenian genocide is made clear by the rest of the sources. I am okay with this, but I think it worth mentioning, because other reviewers have opposed on similar points before. Vanamonde (Talk)22:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on 20 April 1982 (Yom HaShoah)." Is the fact that this occurred on Yom HaShoah significant in any way? If so, I would suggest at the very least translating that term, and incorporating it into the sentence, rather than placing it in parentheses; to someone who doesn't know the term refers to a day, it's confusing.
Removed
"Jak Veissid, the president of the Turkish Jewish community" surely he was president of an organization seeking to represent the community; an ethnic community doesn't usually have a president, does it?
His proper name is Yako Veissid, he was a lawyer ("advocat") and counselor to the Chief Rabbi of Turkey. [5] The best expression for his position would be "Lay Council Chair" (See footnote 57, p. 221 of Bali's (2012) "Model Citizens of the State".)--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The majority of English language sources spell his name Jak Veissid (cited ones, as well as various news articles:[6][7][8] etc.) I had changed to "the chairman of the board of the Turkish Jewish Community" based on the cited sources. (t · c) buidhe22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "board" here seems to only continue the problem, most readers unfamiliar with community practices (ie lay vs religious structures) will not necessarily understand the distinction (especially if there is no possibility to link to an equivalent of the
The "Attempted cancellation" section leaves me a little confused; I'll lay out my concerns, which I suspect may be addressed by slight reordering:
We learn that the Turkish authorities learned of the conference, but the Turkish actions are not directly referred to until much later in the section
Reordered
Arazi's "our" seems to include Veissid; but Veissid was a Turkish subject (right?) and Arazi was an Israeli official; why would they be making the same effort?
The source doesn't shed light on this question (I interpret him referring only to Israeli efforts). Any attempt to clarify would be WP:OR.
"At the time, spokesmen for the Israeli foreign ministry" at what time?
Removed
It's implied, but never stated, that the Turkish government pressured the Israeli government into trying to cancel the conference. Can we say this directly at the outset, perhaps?
Directly stated, following the discussion of Turkish pressure on Israel.
"used it to convince Charny and his other partners to cancel the conference" they didn't cancel, though; so this quote is a bit confusing...I would slightly prefer to see it paraphrased, thereby avoiding ambiguity.
Removed this part of the quote
This section is much better, but a few more thoughts:
I think the first paragraph needs to be reworked such that the content about Veissid being sent by the Turkish government is in the second sentence. It is the necessary context for the rest of that paragraph.
I would suggest switching paragraphs two and three. At the moment, Azari's comments are analytical, but say very little about what actually happened; that is clarified in para 3, where you say that the Israeli government tried to cancel the conference. Analysis seems to precede description. Switching would also address the issue with the "our" in Azari's quote, because that is implicitly the Israeli government.
"Charny refused" is repeated twice in two sentences.
Reworded
Dershowitz is surely best known as a lawyer, rather than a scholar?
Done.
"preventing any notices that it had not been cancelled from being printed in newspapers" how does the Israeli government have the power to do this? Is the Israeli press censored? Not meant as a challenge, genuinely curious.
Auron states that "There was a crucial period of eight days preceding the conference when the organizers could not get a news story into any paper to announce that the conference was taking place." and the Israeli government "controlling the press go[es] beyond the legitimate exercise of government power in a realistic conflict of interests with a group of academics." Israel does have freedom of the press in general, but on the other hand there is nothing preventing the government for asking (probably giving a weighty reason such as "national security") and the papers complying. (My WP:OR interpretation).
"...most science, which aims to be objective and value-free" surely there is not consensus on this among the social and historical sciences...
The source states, "According to the standard view, science should be free from religious or moral values. Scientists may, as human beings, condemn genocide and revere its victims. But these attitudes should not intrude upon their scientific work." I've changed it to "in contrast to the view that science should be objective and value-free".
The statement about the invasion of Lebanon strikes me as a bit out of place, though I can't come up with a much better location; perhaps in "Preparation", though, given that it is before the conference?
Done
"condemned the behavior of Yad Vashem and Israel's refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide" this is the first time Israel's refusal has been mentioned; it belongs also with the content about Turkish denial, surely?
Added mention of this into the preparation section
"Although Balkan denied this, Turkish interference in the museum and threats to Jews have been documented in other sources" I'd suggest restructuring this to avoid implying that Balkan is fibbing, unless the sources explicitly state this; perhaps include the denial with the previous sentence? After all, the second piece does not directly affect the veracity of Balkan's denial.
Auron states that Freeman "said he had been warned then that, if the Armenian issue was to be part of the museum, the safety of Jews in Turkey would be threatened and Turkey might pull out of NATO. The Turkish diplomat, Mithat Balkan, an embassy counselor in Washington, denied the accusations. Turkish interference in the program of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is witnessed by other sources", citing Linethal.
In that case, I would suggest clarifying what exactly Balkan is denying; perhaps "denied any such threats", or equivalent. At the moment, the logical interpretation is that he denied telling Freedman anything. Vanamonde (Talk)22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article strikes me as somewhat short. I did a sweep for sources myself, and came up with nothing new, so I cannot really take issue with this; but I am also not an expert here.
I added a bit more info in the Boghossian article about fringe events[9] There is also some details about specific funders that didn't make it into the article, but I'm concerned about keeping the article concise and on topic.
I think the new content is good, but I was hoping more for content about the conference's impact. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, nothing to be done. Vanamonde (Talk)22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything from me; comments mostly have to do with organization. If you feel so inclined, one of my FACs is languishing for lack of participation, and comments would be welcome; no pressure, of course. Vanamonde (Talk)00:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally hesitant support; all my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction, but I think this is on the lower end of the spectrum of detail that is workable for an FA. This isn't on you, Buidhe, so far as I can tell, but some subjects are always going to be borderline, given the state of the source material. Vanamonde (Talk)04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede indicates that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted to shut down the conference following Turkish threats to close its borders to Jews leaving Iran or Syria. In the "Attempted cancellation" section, the text mentions Ministry attempts to stop the conference before the issue of the closing of the Turkish border is discussed. Did the Ministry intervene before (and after) the issue of Turkey closing its borders arose? The sequencing of events here is not precise. (concur with Vanamonde93's points here, too)
Reordered and added explicit statement about Turkish pressure and the Israeli reaction
Preparation section: "Of three hundred planned lectures" ... conferences usually have papers, panels, presentations.
Two of three sources say "lectures", the other one says "papers". I went with the more common term, but am willing to change if you think that "papers" is more accurate. (t · c) buidhe22:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is a matter of style; I leave for you to choose. FWIW, to my (convoluted) experience of academic English, lectures are what undergraduates attend and during which take notes, conferences are where academics give papers for comment/discussion amongst peers. To my mind a lecture is a form of hierarchical learning, a conference paper intended as peer engagement. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation section: "as well as one of the first conferences to deal with the Armenian Genocide" the author of both sources for this statement is "involved", so to speak. Are there any independent secondary sources to support this claim? Is "deal" too strong a word to use in this case? Three sentences later, the text states that only 6 of 300 contributions covered the Armenian Genocide...in the first part we have a statement emphasising the importance of the subject in the conference, in the second a statement de-emphasising its significance in order to highlight Turkish state over-reaction. Turkish state over-reaction is of course the far more notable issue and Charney's statement "the first academic conference in the world up until that time that gave recognition to the Armenian Genocide" I suspect is difficult to independently verify (I wonder if the implication here is "gave recognition" meaning something more than discuss/debate etc?).
Last sentence: "On later occasions, Israel has also given in to Turkish demands regarding the Armenian Genocide." "Israel acceded to" rather than "given in"...adding at least one example here would be appropriate.
The main text states that "the conference marked the shift from viewing genocide as an irrational phenomenon to one that could be studied and understood". You may want to mention it in the lead, because I understand that this was the most important scientific result of the conference. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your ability to present this highly controversial issue neutrally. I have been unable to decide what would have been your decision as an organizer. Please never reveal it. :) Thank you for this interesting and informative article. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat suggests that the Colwill PhD thesis as an OCLC you can add
Sources appear to be reliable
"Of three hundred planned lectures, six were devoted to the Armenian Genocide" - What do Sherman and Ben Aharon say? Auron says 150 lectures. In fact, the 150 number is given in Auron twice.
Sherman gives the figure of 300; Ben Aharon states "Among numerous discussions on the Holocaust and current developments in genocide research, there would also be six lectures and panels on the Armenian genocide". I tried to confirm which number is correct in the original source, but it doesn't appear to say.[10] The reason I though the higher figure was more reliable was that Auron also states that half of the researchers didn't attend, and he refers to an "originally expected 600 researchers", which makes the low figure seem less likely. But perhaps I should reword the sentence not to give an exact figure? (t · c) buidhe05:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to find a way to reference both numbers. I think having some sort of indication of total number of lectures is necessary, so the proportion of six lectures on Armenia can be determined. At least to me, Auron's One hundred and fifty lectures were scheduled to be held, six of them dealing with the Armenian genocide on pp 217-218 and a mention later on p. 218 of As mentioned, of 150 lectures on the subject of the Holocaust and different cases of genocide, only six were scheduled to deal with the Armenian genocide is decent support for the low number. Since the direct statements of numbers are just Auron's 150 vs Sherman's 300 right now, I'm not convinced that it's really a good idea to pick Sherman over Auron without the support of other sources. If several other sources support the 300 total lectures, then there's a case for ignoring Auron's total or relegating it to a footnote, but I don't think that Sherman alone is that much stronger than Auron alone. Hog FarmTalk06:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something like: "Over 100 lectures(footnote) Footnote: Charny says 150, Sherman says 300." I've looked but can't immediately locate anything that would corroborate either figure. (t · c) buidhe07:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a number of references, and everything is presented fairly, without close paraphrasing, and appears to be properly supported by the source. A search for unused reliable sources didn't bring anything up that appears to be of particularly significance. Hog FarmTalk05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"no Turkish government has acknowledged that any crime was committed against the Armenian people;[6][7] attempts to enlist other countries in this denial date to the 1920s". Not acknowledging and denying are two different things.
I'm not sure what change you're looking to have made here? Virtually every reliable source, including those cited, classifies the Turkish government position as Armenian Genocide denial.
I am not questioning the fact, just looking for clarity of expression. You say that they did not acknowledge it, which could mean that they were sometimes non-committal. I think that the first part should be e.g. "all Turkish governments have denied that any crime was committed". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A few weeks before the conference opened" You have mentioned the dates in the lead, but not so far in the main text.
Done
"According to Charny, a few months before the conference, he and the other organizers began to receive requests from the Israeli foreign ministry to cancel the conference." You say that the Turks only learnt about the conference two months before it started. Did the foreign ministry act before the Turks? If so, you should say so.
There's no indication that "a few months" was earlier than April, or that the Israelis acted preemptively.
I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to clarify the time frame without WP:OR, since the source says "Israel Charny claims that a few months before the conference, he, Wiesel and Davidson started to receive implicit and explicit messages from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs encouraging them to cancel the conference."
"hosted a reception for some of the visitors at the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem.[17] According to Armenian-American historian Richard Hovannisian, it was "crippled" but went forward "with a renewed sense of purpose"." You seem to be saying that the reception was crippled, but presumably you mean the conference.
Fixed
"Arazi told him that reason for the Israeli intervention was "our commitment to relations with Turkey"" Told who?
Clarified
" In 1983, Israeli diplomat Alon Liel [he] cited Israel's interference in the conference to appease Turkish anger over a program on the Armenian Genocide broadcast on Army Radio, the official radio station of the Israel Defense Forces, during which Yehuda Bauer had discussed similarities between the methods of extermination of the Nazis and the Young Turks." I am not sure what this sentence is saying.
Rephrased
This is an interesting article but the title is misleading as it is really about the Turkish attempt to suppress the conference. The article is thin on the conference itself. I think you either need to change the article name or have more on the conference. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it's mainly notable because of censorship (Streisand effect) but on the other hand, the article covers the entire conference as its topic. RS don't have much more to say on the conference itself but I see no reason to narrow the topic by moving to a different name. (t · c) buidhe19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "it marked the shift from viewing genocide as an irrational phenomenon to one that could be studied and understood". In the long run this seems to me more important than the short term bad publicity for the Turks, and I would like to see more about this aspect if you have relevant sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be ideal to expand the part about impacts of the conference. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any more information on that aspect. (t · c) buidhe09:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Sir Thomas Erpingham, a soldier, courtier, and loyal servant of John of Gaunt, his son Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV of England) and grandson Henry V. Erpingham led a full and interesting life, acquired great riches and much power, and was present at the Battle of Agincourt, where as one of the oldest men there, he commanded the English archers. The article has been peer reviewed over the last few weeks (thanks to those involved). Amitchell125 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land". Optional: 'was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke on crusades in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land'?
"impeached as a rebel of the king". I don't think that one can be a rebel of someone, and anyway, isn't "of the king" unnecessary? It seems clear from the context.
"during the main battle". The main battle. What would that be? Maybe 'during fierce hand-to-hand combat fought alongside the King' or similar?
Sentence amended to reflect the fact that TE was not with the king at the start of the battle. There's no evidence he was involved in actual combat. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:JOBTITLES: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)"
Indentured comes up a lot. Could we have either a brief in line explanation or a fuller footnote. (Or, if you want to spoil the readers, both.)[note 1]
"the earliest known date in which his knighthood is referred to* "in" → 'at'.
Done.
"the kingdom of Castile". Upper case K.
Done.
"dominated the duke's life". Upper case D.
Done.
"the freedom the king" K. I am going to stop mentioning them, read MOS:JOBTITLES, especially the second bullet point, and have a run through the article.
"Lancaster granted him the Norfolk hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, which was granted for life ten years later". So on what basis was it granted first time?
^ In a different article I dealt with the issue with "Derby was appointed the King's Lieutenant in Gascony on 13 March 1345 and received a contract to raise a force of 2,000 men in England, and further troops in Gascony itself. The highly detailed contract of indenture had a term of six months from the opening of the campaign in Gascony, with an option for Edward to extend it for a further six months on the same terms." which hopefully made the term clear from context. I don't necessarily recommend that here, I just wanted to show one way of dealing with it.
Revolution of 1399
"for his support for in the struggle" Delete the second "for".
"Bolingbroke gained more support in his cause". "in" → 'for'.
"duchy of Lancaster". Upper case D.
"As he moved across northern and central England. Richard, delayed in Ireland, eventually found ships to cross over the Irish Sea." Should this be a single sentence? Either way it looks as if something is missing in the middle.
"the bishop of Norwich". Upper case B. And similarly for any subsequent proper nouns.
"when it supported the Lords Appellant". Perhaps a brief in line explanation? So a reader doesn't have to read a separate article for the sentence to make sense.
"which was presented". "was" → 'were'.
"Henry IV awarded the city a new charter ... [new paragraph] ... and the city gained a new charter".
"he travelled with his father to the English possession of Aquitaine ... Edward III had lost Aquitaine in 1337"[?]
"strong infrastructure and amply supply of manpower". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
"Henry's inner circle", then "Henry V's campaign". Henry V at first mention, thereafter just Henry.
"Erpingham crossed over from England with Henry's army on 11 August 1415, where they landed at the mouth of the River Seine". "where" doesn't make sense unless France or Normandy is mentioned in the sentence.
"Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged commanders" → 'Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged English commanders'. And hyphenate 'middle-ages'.
"He is not mentioned in English versions of the events of 1415". 1. Insert 'contemporaneous'. 2. Not at all? Or just not in accounts of Agincourt?
The lead states "Erpingham presided over the surrender of Harfleur and was garrisoned in the town over the winter of 1414–1415." but the second part is not mentioned in the article.
"men-at-war". Do you mean men-at-arms?
Link men-at-arms.
"in comparison with the men-at-war present on the field" Suggestion: 'in proportion to the number of men-at-arms present'.
"He positioned them in front and to the sides in front of the English army". I think that I know what you are trying to say, but it is not that clear, and having "in front" twice doesn't help. Leaving aside their being the largest part of the English army and so there are existential issues about their being in front of it/themselves.
The block quote: 1. link Jean de Wavrin. 2. I don't think that he wrote that in 1887. 3. "Article Title"?
"was ordered to advance the front line of his archers". Just the front line? Did the others stay where they were?
"to within range of the French". What range is meant here? In context it reads as if you mean attack range of the French, which you don't.
"a group of 200 archers concealed in a meadow began to shoot into the French flanks." I have great respect for Curry, but that seems improbable. Are you quite sure that is what she says? (And why is this single sentence in a separate paragraph?)
"a distinguishing feature of the battle, and one which forced the French formations to divide into three columns." This either needs an explanation or deleting. I would suggest the latter.
"When the main battle began to be attacked by the English" Attacked by the English men-at-arms advancing on foot, or by archers firing from their original positions?
PS As his role at Agincourt is what he is most famous for, I don't think that relying almost entirely on Curry for that is going to cover "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I mean, it isn't as if there isn't a fair few accounts of Erpingham's role to be surveyed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry V's army then marched to Calais". Mention that Calais was an English enclave. Link to Pale of Calais.
"After his return to England". Do we know when?
@Gog the Mild: the sources disagree—Barker appears to state here that Erpingham was at Harfleur over the winter of 1415/16, but Anne Curry states (2000, p. 73): "The army moved on to Calais and thence to Dover, where Erpingham landed around 16 November." Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This may be on a different point: the article. after your account of Agincourt, states "Henry's army then marched to the English enclave of the Pale of Calais, embarked from Calais on 16 November and returned to England.[84] Erpingham was among those 300 men-at arms and 900 archers who garrisoned the town over the winter of 1414–1415"> Is that date at the end correct?
"Constable of Dover". We don't go by what websites say, we go by the MoS. There are numerous examples of speciality areas - including many highly formal ones - liking to capitalise words which are important to them. But we still go by the MoS, not by common or expert usage; I agree that this is contrary to how Wikipedia usually addresses such matters.
"Knights of the Garter". Similarly. You are not referring to the Order, but to an unspecified group of its members, so it's a "job title, see MOS:JOBTITLES.
Agincourt: you have now removed most of the account of the battle, which IMO, doesn't work either. Especially as the account now ends part way through.
Shakespeare: "Most, if not all, of the straight quoting from Shakespeare needs to go. The first six and last nine lines handle this well." You have marked this as "Done", but I suspect there was some miscommunication. I would like to see all of the Shakespeare lines removed. I feel that the first six and last nine lines of prose in the section, written in Wikipedia's voice, handle this well.
"There's no evidence he was involved in actual combat". Well, possibly, but given your "He then dismounted and moved with his banner to join the King" and Sumption's "Henry V had to fight for his life" could you come up with something which doesn't suggest that he kept well back while shouting helpful advice?
"whose military career during the Hundred Years War spanned four decades" I may have this wrong, but the first involvement is the Hundred Years War I can find is the relief of Brest in 1386 and the last is Agincourt in 1416. That's not "four decades".
"Erpingham accompanied Bolingbroke into exile in October 1398, and was with Bolingbroke when he landed". Possibly replace second "Bolingbroke" with 'him'?
It's a title like 'the Duke of Kent', I think it's an example of "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" (MOS:JOBTITLES}. He wasn't just a marshal, he was the Marshal. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Above some responses to your responses to my initial comments; and some further comments on just the lead, infobox and captions. I have not (so far) checked any of your changes to the article in response to my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the successful defence tactics". "defence" → 'defensive'.
"Erpingham's own actions during his travels across Europe are not recorded, and so, or was with him in Jerusalem." I assume there is a typo towards the end of this?
"The historian Helen Castor has described the Duke of Lancaster's presence in East Anglia as a "disparate collection” that lacked coherence or a single identity" This doesn't make sense. How can Lancaster not have a single identity?
"to be commissioner of peace". Is that from the source? I am more used to 'to be a commissioner the of peace'.
Goodman specifically refers more than once to men such as Erpingham being appointed to "commissions of peace", and calls them commissioners. I'll amend the sentence accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"considered Richard's decision an act of revenge". Any information on what Richard was revenging himself for?
Henry was one of the five appellants who opposed Richard in 1388, putting many of the King's advisors on trial and removing him from government for a year. Richard never forgave any of them; the five men were later exiled, executed or murdered. Do you think a note would suffice? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"they were welcomed and presented with lavish gifts". By/from whom.
Sorted.
"and his banishment was increased by the King to life." Optional: delete "by the King".
"when Chester fell to Bolingbroke. By 27 July Bolingbroke had reached Berkeley, near Bristol" I thought that Chester fell after Bolingbroke reached Berkeley. Is that wrong? If not, why is the account not in chronological order?
"He served as Chamberlain until 1404, acted briefly as Steward of the Household the same year and became acting Marshal of England in October". Why all the upper case letters? Later "Steward of the Household". Probably more. These need resolving.
"Henry IV's reign, which had been marked by a rise in banditry and rioting". As I mentioned above, the source does not support this. The "rise" that is.
"The concealed archers started firing into the French flanks, which signalled a continuous discharge of arrows by the main body of archers". Other sources, eg Sumption, have this the other way round.
"The French plan was to use mounted men-at-arms to overcome the English archers, leaving the men-at-arms to attack their heavily outnumbered English counterparts." Is it the same men-at-arms who do both attacks?
"He also lost the tenure of some of his lands, a common occurrence when manors were awarded 'for life'. This really confuses me. Surly losing tenure should be extremely rare if it is awarded for life?
Curry says (without any further explanation): "The tenure of manors seems frequently to have been given 'for life', and as frequently removed and given to others well within that life time." so I've taken her word for it. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in that case can I suggest "a common occurrence at the time" → 'a common occurrence when manors were awarded 'for life or similar to avoid baffling readers.
"forced to relinquish his claim "of the manors of Erpingham and Wyckmere" Is it known why?
The citations from Curry (2000) include (at least) one from another chapter, so I've amended the source so that the chapter on Sir Thomas isn't mentioned. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All book titles should be in title case, eg Curry (2000).
John of Gaunt is sometimes referred to as Lancaster. Is there a reason? In particular this makes this from the lead "he served under the King's uncle John of Gaunt in Spain and Scotland" appear not to link to the main text.
He was a prince, an earl and a duke (and perhaps also king). I'm not quite sure where to go with this one. Do you think he should be referred to as John of Gaunt throughout? The name is only popular nowadays because of Shakespeare. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky. And the sources don't help much. You have Lancaster pretty much throughout, and that seems fine to me. I suggest changing note 3 to Lancaster. I have tweaked your one bare mention of "Gaunt", [12], see what you think.
"chamberlain of the Royal Household"; "steward of the royal household". Which? My view is that the MoS requires 'royal household' in both cases.
"restore his rightful inheritance to the Duchy of Lancaster" → either 'restore his rightful inheritance of the Duchy of Lancaster' or 'restore his rights to the Duchy of Lancaster'.
Quotebox from Chronique d'Angleterre is sandwiching the image, contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. I would use {{quote}} instead so it appears inline, or alternately deleting entirely.
within twelve months law and order had been re-established throughout England I'm not sure the lead makes it what happened to the law in the first place?
Which one do you think is more significant for him, administrator or soldier? Just checking, as I think the order of them in the first sentence should probably reflect this—and which ever it is, the infobox is opposite currently
A minor quibble, but if we're being true to the prose requirements of FAC In 1379... In the summer of 1380 seems less than ideal with the double "in" beginning two consecutive sentences
Perhaps this is dubious, but an inflated price for £20 may help the reader understand why that would have made him rich
I checked for something, but all the sources warn against comparing modern incomes with medieval incomes in terms of inflation. Dyer mentions that during the 15th century only 12,000 households had an income of £10-£300 and Erpingham would have fitted into this category, so I'll include that to provide some more context for his wealth. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general idea what it raised the siege of the English garrison means, but am left somewhat unsure, maybe there's a better way to rephrase? Also, the line almost sounds like Erpingham was against the English garrison
Perhaps use Biggs's full name for the quote, since we haven't heard him before; and I reckon an identifier like "historian" would be nice, otherwise the reader may think this is a comment from someone else in the retinue!
feats that enhanced the reputation in England of Bolingbroke and his retinue as Christian soldiers – I see the point here, but perhaps there's a more to the point way to describe this, like "legitimized them", "true Christian soldiers", "soldiers of particular piety". There is a good chance though that I may be the only one finding issue with this line, so do what you will
a dispute — we should surely not go to length in explaining this, but I wonder if something like "a territorial/financial/whatever dispute" could be included, otherwise it seems rather vague
Excuse my ignorance, carried the King's sword before him—am not really sure what this means? As interesting as it sounds, I would suspect many of our readers may share my confusion here (at least American ones?). Although, if it is as literal as it sounds it would be fine I'm sure
As part of the coronation procession to Westminster Abbey, Erpingham carried one of the Swords of State, riding before the King. I've amended the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little confused, was he chamberlain twice then? Or are these chamberlain positions ("appointed to be chamberlain" & "he served as chamberlain") the same? If the latter, I wonder if "continued to serve" would be clearer
Would recommend putting a ref directly after the "for bearing his word to"... quote, since this seems to be the (de facto or de jure, not sure) norm with quote verifiability on WP
This was achieved within a year. Henry's administrators—Erpingham included—were unusually talented, and order was maintained in England throughout his reign. – if available, any information on what Erpingham did specifically may be valuable here
Agreed, and I looked around, but there wasn't anything specific mentioned by the sources. It looks as if he gone on with the work involved with the roles he had in court. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edward, as a descendant of Philip IV of France – err, what? Edward III?
used Erpingham's character more inventively and more often than Olivier, and showed more of an awareness of Erpingham's place in history. if his part was still mostly silent, such a line hints of some POV; can we credit the source in-text here, or lessen down on the supposed supremacy of Branagh's depiction? :)
Looks great. I found this article enjoyable to read and well researched. The comprehensiveness was there and just enough background info was included to make sense of Erpingham's place. I'm realizing now that my confusion with the Edward line was that I didn't see the difference of roman numerals in Philip VI vs Philip IV! Happy to support this nomination. Best - Aza24 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the prose here needs considerable work. Some examples:
"In July 1399, Erpingham was one of Bolingbroke's supporters who landed with him at Ravenspur, probably at the end of June." If he landed in July, how could he probably have landed at the end of June?
"Lancaster granted him the hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, in the form of a fief, or legal right to use the land awarded. [6] for “loyal service to the House of Lancaster”,[28] The hundred was granted for life ten years later"
These specific prose issues have been addressed, but more work is needed in this area. Some additional examples: "Erpingham was ordered warn the army" and "on 22 September he processed to the walls". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the narrative is difficult to follow for a non-expert. For example, is an annual income of £20 significant or trifling? Why would the king gain freedom from not having Lancaster around? Where had the peace been made by July 1392?
Further examples: earlier in the Early military service section it says the year he was knighted is unknown, but later it says it is implied in existing records - implied to be what, and how? Why was the trial by battle cancelled? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Sir Thomas Erpingham's statue (or possibly an effigy taken from his tomb)" - source? Some of the other details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as the date of his second marriage
Nikkimaria, these should be good now, unless you're seeing something I'm not; sorry for butting in Amitchell, I had so extra time when I saw your message on my talk – Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further examples: ODNB sources don't match each other in formatting; Biggs has a double date; Bibliography is not correctly alphabetized. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked at this, it's on the edge, and can likely be removed without effecting the article negatively. However, it seems silly to do so, since only a single citation is used, and for a doubtlessly uncontroversial quote... Aza24 (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on Vane again (who doesn't seem to be a published author), it's probably best to leave him out. A Google search for "Sir Thomas Erpingham" brings up the thesis if anyone is interested. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two unexpected Americanisms: the usual English form is "in XYZ Street" not "on" it, and the OED prefers the traditional English "adviser" to "advisor".
but due to a lack of food - In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
journeyed through Europe, visiting Prague, Vienna, Corfu, and the Holy Land – this reads as though the Holy Land is in Europe. Perhaps "and then the Holy Land" or some such?
Richard's decision an act of revenge – we haven't had any mention in the earlier paras of any action by Bolingbroke that might have displeased the King. Later on footnote 6 makes all clear, but a few words here would be helpful.
where he met up with Richard's uncle – the only edition of Fowler I have to hand is the Gowers one, which is very sniffy about phrasal verbs like "meet up with". Memory tells me that the 2015 edition sits on the fence about them, but "meet up with" still looks a bit slangy to me.
Lord Warden – I am well aware that if one over-seriously pursues consistent capitalisation of titles one is apt to become unhinged, but I do just wonder why Lord Warden is capitalised when constable, marshal, and controller of the royal household are not. I do not press the point.
and as a descendant of Philip IV of France had a claim to the French throne – I had to go back to the start of this sentence. I read "as" as "because" and was expecting something new where the full stop is. Even reading the "as" in the sense that you intend, I am not clear about whether it was Edward III's or Henry V's claim to the French throne we are talking about here.
Erpingham was one of a significant number – what did the number signify? I try to keep in mind Gowers's advice: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large." There are two more significants in the text: one in the lead, and an encore in "Architectural legacy". It wouldn't hurt to revisit those too.
His connections with the Lancastrians and his increasing wealth – WP seems to have developed a convention that at first mention in a new paragraph one must use the name rather than a pronoun. I think this is rather a silly convention, and one you will look for in vain elsewhere, but I mention it here in passing.
Those are my few comments. This seems to me a first-class article: a pleasure to read, top-notch prose, splendidly illustrated and as far as I can see admirably balanced and proportioned. I can't comment knowledgeably about the sources, but I note that they are many and more than half are of recent vintage. Tim riley talk09:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting article, but I have some queries about the sourcing. A few are too dated and may not be reliable, especially Blomefield and Parkin, 1805-10 and Rimmer 1877. You cite the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, but the latest edition of any work should be consulted. You cite Veronica Sekules as Atherton, the editor of the book she wrote in, but you should cite her chapter.
"Their ancestor Robert, the first lord of the manor,[3] represented Norfolk in the Parliaments of 1333–1334, 1335, and 1341.[4]" This shows the danger of relying on excessively dated sources, in this case Blomefield and Parkin. Pollard, who you also cite, shows that this is wrong on two counts. The Robert who was the first lord was a different person from the parliamentary representative and it is not known whether either was a direct ancestor.
"Lancaster's wealth and royal status gave him a prominence in affairs of state that created tension between him and Richard" This is not quite right. His wealth would presumably not have created tension if he had fully supported Richard.
"For reasons that are not fully understood he went into the service of Bolingbroke." Why not understood? It seems quite natural.
I agree. Curry says that the transfer of Erpingham was one of "17 knights and esquires who had previously been granted an annuity by Gaunt". As the occurrence was apparently not unusual, I've not kept the ;For reasons that are not fully understood...' part. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it crossed the English Channel on a crusading expedition to Marseilles" Perhaps explain why a crusade would go to Marseille.
"Shortly afterwards, Erpingham arrested Henry le Despenser, one of the few remaining supporters of Richard prepared to resist Bolingbroke.[40] Erpingham would naturally have supported Lancaster over Despenser[41]—Lancastrian antipathy towards the 'fighting bishop' may be traced back to 1383, after Despenser's crusade to Flanders was favoured over Lancaster's military aims." I suggest "Shortly afterwards, Erpingham arrested Henry le Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, one of the few remaining supporters of Richard prepared to resist Bolingbroke." The rest is redundant - Despenser would presumably have been arrested for resisting the coup regardless of any former antipathy. Also, it is relevant that he was Bishop of Norwich, which you do not mention in the main text.
"Richard was forced by Bolingbroke and his representatives—including Erpingham—to relinquish the throne." "forced" is surely too strong - many men would have refused to give way.
Sentence amended, see what you think.
" lord warden and constable of Dover Castle as early as 21 August, and appointed to be chamberlain of the royal household" It is probably a matter of personal taste but I would capitalise the titles, which are capitalised in the linked articles.
Speaking as an old codger I do not read that section of the sacred MoS as requiring us to lower-case things no sane person would lower-case. To speak of "the lord chancellor", for instance, looks plain daft, me judice. Tim riley talk17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an even older codger, one of the things I find most irritating about Wikipedia is the passion for lower casing titles which clearly should be capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"As Blount watched his own bowels being burnt before him, he cursed Erpingham for being a "false traitor"." Perhaps worth quoting the fuller account in John which shows his brutality and, as John says, provides a counterbalance to the favourable image of Erpingham in Lancastrian sources.
"Henry's administrators—Erpingham included—were unusually talented". Walker in ODNB disagrees: "Erpingham was frequently at court during the early years of Henry IV's reign but an apparent distaste for administrative business meant that he attended the council only occasionally."
"where they welcomed John I, Duke of Burgundy" There seems no point in mentioning this without explaining its significance. Also John should be linked if he is mentioned.
"Blickling Hall in Norfolk was once owned by Erpingham, when in 1407 Berney helped him to buy the manor there." I am not clear what you are saying here.
"His second marriage was to Joan Walton, the daughter of Sir Richard Walton, and widow of Sir John Howard, who had died in 1409 or 1410." "had died in 1409" sounds odd as he was widowed in 1404.
"According to the author Thomas M. Cranfill" The description is not helpful. He must have been an author if you are quoting him. Can he not be more informatively described?
"Sekules, Veronica (1996). "The Gothic Campaigns"." I am not sure whether it is a requirement, but it is usual to give the page numbers of the chapter.
I'm concerned that note 1 may be a bit too long and veer into slightly undue detail. It's helpful, and I may be wrong, so I'd be interested to here what others think about that
It may have been me who requested it. It is long for my taste, but not to the extent that I would insist on shortening it. Which may largely reflect my interest in such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" It is assumed that Erpingham was with Lancaster during the English invasion of Scotland in 1385" - By whom?
"and went on to bring Galicia under English control" - Given that we have no primary topic for Galicia and that there is another region named Galicia in Europe, maybe call it Spanish Galicia or something to avoid potential confusion?
"Bolingbroke and his reduced retinue journeyed through Europe, visiting Prague, Vienna, Corfu, and then the Holy Land," - this phrasing can suggest that the Holy Land is part of Europe
"Henry's coronation took place on 13 October 1399 at Westminster Abbey, when Erpingham carried one of the King's swords before the King during the procession to the abbey" - The joining of these two clauses with "when" seems a little odd to me
" He was a commander in the army that suppressed the duketti rebellion of 1399–1400" - The average reader, including myself, is going to find duketti to be a rather confusing term. Is it possible to link or gloss this?
"Erpingham held a prominent position in East Anglian society;" - Move the link for East Anglia up to the first sentence of Revolution of 1399, where it is first mentioned
"It cooperated with him as an important member of Henry's inner circle" - I find this sentence rather confusing. What is "it" and cooperated seems to be an odd word choice here (although that might be my American English)
"third wife of the Duke of Lancaster, the manors of Erpingham and Wyckmere, and of all lands, rents, services, Villeins with their villeinages etc. there and in all other towns in Norfolk sometime of Robert Erpingham knight"" - We have the end of the quote, and this reads very much like a quote, but it's not marked where the quote begins
"His second marriage was to Joan Walton, the daughter of Sir Richard Walton, and widow of Sir John Howard, who had died in 1409 or 1410." - When did this marriage occur?
Supporting on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, and source reliability. 1b and 1c also seem to be met, although I did not explicitly check against those. Hog FarmTalk23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers a pair of battleships built as part of a large naval program aimed at countering German naval expansion. They were largely repeated with the four Liberté class, and both designs marked a major increase in size and power over earlier French battleships. Both ships saw service during World War I, but little actual combat, and both were reduced to secondary roles by 1919. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"but Patrie lingered on in her training duties". Maybe "duties" → 'role'?
Sounds good to me
"when she was decommissioned and sold for scrap the following year". I don't think that grammatically you can have "when" referring to 1936, then "and ... the following year."
Good point - I've split the sentence
"which marked a significant expansion of the fleet". Suggest 'their fleet'.
Done
"Bertin was now in a position"> Delete "now".
Done
"15,000 t (15,000 long tons)". This is to a different level of accuracy to your earlier convertion.
Fixed
"and the standard main armament of four 305 mm (12 in) guns in two twin-gun turrets was specified". Was this also to "ensure passage through the Suez Canal"?
No - split the sentence
"on 9 December the parliament approved". "the parliament" seems an odd usage - this may be only to me. Perhaps 'the French parliament' or just 'parliament'?
Deleted "the"
"was to have fulfilled the specified number of six new battleships". That is ungrammatical. (And repetitous.)
Reworded, see how that works
"though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its own". You switch from "these" to "its". Try 'though these are sometimes considered to be a sub-class of the République class rather than a distinct class of its their own'.
Fixed
What's an average draft?
Draft can vary depending on the loading; I don't know exactly what this figure corresponds to (perhaps loading under normal peacetime conditions, where only part of the fuel and ammunition would be carried? The source doesn't clarify, unfortunately)
"with République reaching ... 19,898 metric horsepower (19,626 ihp) and Patrie ... 18,107 metric horsepower". 1. Is in known what the design output was? 2. Is any reason known for the discrepancy between the two ships? Nearly 10%!
The design power is in the previous sentence - 17,500 metric hp. As to the difference, I can't say, exactly; the ships' engines differed slightly (R's were 4-cylinder VTE and P's were 3-cylinder), which may explain it
"and was fired at a muzzle velocity of" → 'which was fired at a muzzle velocity of'.
Done
"the gun was no longer suitable for use against the latest torpedo boats". Optional: "suitable" → 'adequate'.
Sounds good
"Cofferdam": 1. could this be linked to the Naval architecture section? 2. Any chance of a brief in line explanation? It is not a common expression and it breaks concentration to have to follow the Wikilink.
Done
"A heavily armored tube that was 200 mm thick"> Was the tube or the armour 200 mm thick?
Reworded
"it was reduced to 20 mm on two layers of". "on" → 'of'.
No, the total thickness was 40mm, 20 of armor plate on top of two 10mm layers of mild steel
"Tests to determine whether the main battery turrets could be modified to increase the elevation of the guns (and hence their range) proved to be impossible". The tests proved to be impossible? (Which is how it reads now.) Or the tests proved that increasing the elevation was impossible?
Reworded
"the ships received two". Two each?
Yes
In which case suggest 'the ships each received two' for clarity.
Done
"reinforce the Dardanelles Division fighting Ottoman forces in the Gallipoli campaign; she provided gunfire support to Allied troops fighting ashore". I think that the second "fighting" could be deleted as a given.
Done
"until they were forced to evacuate"> "forced" seems a bit PoV. Is that the consensus of historians?
I guess it depends on your definition of "forced" - were the Ottomans threatening to push them into the sea? No. But the Allied command had realized by that point that, for a number of reasons, nothing could be achieved by continuing to fight the campaign (apart from uselessly wasting their own soldiers' lives)
It was rhetorical. Maybe 'until they were evacuated' or similar?
Works for me.
"and renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim" → 'and been renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim'.
Support. Nicely done, agree with Gog re digestible technical information.
After all the talk about the German Naval Law, both ships served in the Med. I would have thought it made sense to mention the Entente Cordiale and the reason why French policy changed.
A very good idea - I've added a bit on this, but am not entirely sure it's in the right place (I considered putting it in the design section). What do you think?
Given the timing, was that flu the Spanish flu? If so some mention of the death toll would be merited if possible.
It' probably a WP:BLUE sort of thing, but I can't find any confirmation that it was the Spanish flu. I've added the death toll but left further details at the Patrie page.
There is some mention of coal bunkers as part of the armour protection, do you have more detail on that aspect of the design?
No, unfortunately - Jordan and Caresse don't go into any detail on that. There are a couple of drawings (similar to this that show the layout, but unless you want something crudely done in MS Paint, I can't help there ;)
Thanks for looking, obviously we don't need to go further than the sources. Maybe sometime in the future a better source will arrive. ϢereSpielChequers16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Both ships entered service with the fleet in January 1907" - source?
January is wrong - removed
The infobox indicates 16 x 65mm, text says 13 - which is correct?
13 - fixed
The Commons template is overlapping with footnotes
There must have been a change somewhere - that used to work, but it seems to be using the first template to determine the space available for footnotes. I've flipped them, which appears to have fixed it
"They carried a similar offensive armament of four 305 mm (12 in) guns and eighteen 164 mm (6.5 in) guns, though most of the 164 mm guns were now mounted in more flexible gun turrets rather than in casemates, and they had a much more effective armor protection arrangement that remedied the tendency of earlier battleships to lose stability from relatively minor damage." - Split this very long sentence.
Done
I'm confused by where the range of 1907-1924 for in commission in the infobox. Shouldn't the end date be 1936?
Good catch
" the conning tower was too small to accommodate the crew, the bridge wings obstructed views aft, which forced the commander to leave the safety of the armored conning tower to see all around the ship" - Missing an "and", as there's only two items listed here?
Fixed
"At the outbreak of war in August 1914, the French fleet was mobilized " - Name WWI here.
Green was the youngest Australian Army battalion commander during WWII, leading the 2/11th Battalion in the Aitape-Wewak campaign of 1945 after previous service in the Middle East and Greece. He is also the only commanding officer of a battalion of the post-WWII Royal Australian Regiment to have been killed on active service (in Korea). The foundations of this article were laid by retired Milhist coord AnotherClown some years ago, but I was prompted by the recent 70th anniversary of Green's death to bring it up to GA then Milhist ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look. See above. Presumably an official photographer accompanying the US officer in the photo, but I don't have a copy of Bartlett, Norman, ed. (1960). With the Australians in Korea (3rd ed.) to hand to check the page number and caption. Just pinging some likely holders of a copy, @Hawkeye7, Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Ian Rose:. Otherwise I'll have to pop down to the uni library and take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, PM, unfortunately, I am away from home for a bit so I don't have access to my books at the moment -- I will see if I can get my wife to check, though, or I might be able to get in touch with AC who uploaded it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bartlett cites it specifically as a "U.S. Army photograph" on the image plates between pages 14 and 15 in the source book. I have added this to the description page now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"so the battalion did not see action until mid-April. Green and the rest of the 2/2nd Battalion saw action". "... see action ... saw action ..." Optional: a synonym for one?
"Green himself reached the island of Euboea in the Aegean on 7 May, where he met several other members of the battalion, then to the island of Skyro". "then to the island of Skyro" isn't a grammatical fit. Maybe 'who then travelled together to the island of Skyro' or similar?
"at the age of only 25 he was the youngest Australian battalion commander during the war". Why is this part of a sentence about his promotion, rather than his taking command of the battalion.
"were constantly interdicted by the Japanese early on". I realise that you are just summarising the citation, but constant interdiction and interdiction early on seem to be different things.
"Green was chosen and left Australia for Japan on 8 September,[1] and took over command of 3 RAR on 12 September." I don't think that you can have "and" twice here.
Note a: why the "probably"? Australian War Memorial unequivocally states that he was.
I don't know why Barter says "probably", she is in the minority, so that's why I have stated that he was in the body and included her minority view in the note. Annoyingly, when it ran at DYK, someone insisted on Barter's wording rather than what is the consensus position. I've also changed the mentions of the ADB to Barter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Class! (I had only previously come across mention of Green and 3RAR in the autobiography of David Wilson, CO commanding a company of 1ASHR which was also in 27th Brigade. It was a pleasure to read a full account of his career.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PM, only a few comments. I was going to do a couple of the very minor changes but another editor made some changes whilst I was reviewing. My review is on article version before those...
The 2/2nd Battalion returned to Australia in August 1942 via Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), to fight the Japanese. - this sounds like the Japanese were in Australia? (I know Darwin was Feb 1942 but eg 6th Div article says "returned to Australia to meet the threat of Japan's entry into the war.")
The citation highlighted... ; that the interdiction of the battalion's supply lines by the Japanese early in the campaign; - I don't understand this clause, maybe "that" needs to go?
Hmm, sorry PM, I'm still having trouble here. The other clauses don't use a "that". I can't see the source though it's apparent what it says. I've tried 2 ways to visualise it differently (definitely not suggesting changing to these), to try to see where I was getting muddled.
1) pretending the other clauses don't exist...
The citation highlighted that the interdiction of the battalion's supply lines by the Japanese early in the campaign.
2) reading them as a list...
The citation highlighted:
the challenging terrain and conditions throughout the campaign;
that the interdiction of the battalion's supply lines by the Japanese early in the campaign;
the particularly stiff and determined enemy resistance and considerable casualties;
Green's deft handling of his logistics;
his outstanding leadership which helped him maintain morale and efficiency within the battalion;
and the fact that all objectives assigned to the unit during the campaign were achieved.
(If it said: "that the battalion's supply lines were interdicted by the Japanese early in the campaign" I can see that "that" belongs)
August, drafts of the battalion began to be - what are drafts, conscripted men? The only wlink I can find is Conscription in Australia#World War II but it may be not particularly helpful?
DSO - The Post World War II section has 4 March but Notes say 6 March. (Gazette pubn date is 4 March but supplement page is dated 6 March and head column says War Office, 6th March. Nat Archives says "Date of announcement in London Gazette: 06 March 1947") So... settle on 6?
Ah, and I get a lot from reading them. I've tried to explain my parsing problem with his DSO citation above but it's not stopping me from very happily adding my Support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"his career remains an inspiration to serving Australian soldiers" - text supports that this was the case as of 1996, but that was quite a while ago now. Anything more recent to say this is still true?
" Australian Army infantry battalion" - A bit nitpicky, but this is a minor MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. I don't know that it's avoidable without introducing an awkward phrasing, so feel free to ignore this one.
"He is considered one of the Australian Army's better unit-level commanders," - which suggests that this is a still-current scholarly consensus, but in the body this is attributed to three combat officers. I don't doubt that the subject was an excellent unit-level commander, but the impression given in the lead doesn't quite match with the attribution, IMO.
"understood them and they understood he was fair dinkum (authentic)" - This may just be me being taught a different writing style than yours, so ignore this if that's the case, but I thought interpolations like authentic here went into square brackets to demonstrate that they are interpolations and not found in the quoted source material.
" the battalion lost 20 killed, and 29 wounded and killed 118 Japanese" - Are you sure there should be a comma after killed? I'm not certain either way.
"culminating in capturing the 710 feature on 15 May " - Is it possible to be a little more specific with what kind of feature the 710 feature was? Like a bunker or a hill or a fortification?
"culminating in capturing the 710 feature on 15 May " - Is it possible to be a little more specific with what kind of feature the 710 feature was? Like a bunker or a hill or a fortification?
Hog, most geographic features do not have names, but they often have spot heights marked on the map. (In this case it would be in feet; 710' is about 216 m.) So we often refer to them by the spot heights. Actually, they were lucky to have maps with spot heights, largely due to the work of the Allied Geographical Section. Most wartime maps of New Guinea had no contours, but indicated the lie of the land with cross hatching. When I looked at the maps used in the 1943 Wau-Salamaua campaign, many did not even that, and were just blank (although usefully coloured green). Hawkeye7(discuss)09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Hog Farm, I believe that this article is in great shape, and should be promoted. I have a few minor comments:
Consider putting Aitape-Wewak campaign in the infobox instead of "South West Pacific theatre" (technically incorrect, as SWPA was part of the Pacific theatre)
I'm not sure what the footnote (a) is about. Margaret Barter wrote her PhD on the 2/2nd Battalion, and what she meant is that she hadn't checked all the records. However Garth Pratten wrote his PhD on the Australian battalion commanders of the Second World War and he did just that. In his book Australian Battalion Commanders in the Second World War (pp. 238-239) you can find the unequivocal statement that "the youngest Australian CO of the Second World War was Charles 'Charlie' Green." He also notes the runners up on p. 381: J. de M. Carstairs (22 Bn, age 29), W. M. Mayberry (58/59th Bn, age 29), P. M. Shanahan (55/53rd Bn, age 27) and H. G. Sweet (11th B, age 29). Suggest using that.
OK, I was just indicating that there was some equivocation by Barter (which if source verification was conducted could have been picked up by a reviewer), but I take your point that far greater weight should be given to Pratten as a specialist on WWII COs. Removed note. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 1978 science fiction novel that is likely Vonda McIntyre's best-known work. I have spent some time on it, and it recently was given a thorough GA review by Mike Christie, so I think it's in decent shape. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk)22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest elaborating on note B - I'm assuming that for some reason non-paperbacks are ineligible but would suggest explaining this
It's not that non-paperbacks were ineligible, but that a book released in both formats in different years got two shots at the award, so to speak. I have tried to clarify. Vanamonde (Talk)19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN4: I'm assuming based on what this is citing that Le Guin was the author here?
Yes, but it's just a quotation, similar to the blurbs on the back of books (indeed, this one also appears on the back of the book); not an article; do you want me to list Le Guin as the author?
Not to be difficult, but how would I do that differently? It's on a page of the magazine, or the back cover of the book; what else do you add? Vanamonde (Talk)20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure it is; the author is a dedicated speculative fiction bibliographer, but has no credentials beyond that. I had added it to bolster the isfdb source on a specific detail that nobody else covers, but it's not strictly necessary, so removed. Vanamonde (Talk)19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entries for the most part do have credited authors that should be included in citations
It's run by Gawker media, which isn't a weighty enough source for its own views to be given much space, but has enough oversight that I believe we can assume it's reporting McIntyre's interview accurately. It's only used for her statement about the internal chronology, which is attributed to her. Vanamonde (Talk)19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gawker, the blog, is listed at RSP as unreliable. Gawker, the parent media company, is not. However, turns out that's irrelevant; io9 and other sites were bought by G/O Media in 2019; G/O media has an editorial policy, here. io9 has its own editors, listed here. @Nikkimaria: is that sufficient? If not, I'll remove it, and the one sentence it's used for. Vanamonde (Talk)19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Not sure there was one. I dug a fair bit on the internet archive, but no go. There's several references to an editorial policy in legal disputes beginning in 2015, but none from 2013. Vanamonde (Talk)20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you deciding which works end up in Sources and which don't?
Necessity, usually. I have been told sfn citations are somewhat harder to follow, because you need two clicks to go to the source, and can't go back up easily; but <ref></ref> are harder to use multiple page-ranges with...I assume by your question that you'd prefer something more consistent, so I have now moved all books and journal articles to "sources"; newspapers and web sources remain in "references". Vanamonde (Talk)19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN66 is missing page number. Ditto FN67, check for others
Recusing to review. The last time I reviewed one of your articles I ended up rereading half of LeGuin's oeuvre. I have just pulled McIntyre's first two novels off the shelf. I had forgotten I had them!
"winning the 1979 Hugo Award, the 1978 Nebula Award, and the 1979 Locus Poll Award". Is there a reason these are not in chronological order? As is done in the main article.
"While her cobra Mist manufactures an antidote in her venom glands". Antidote seems an odd word to describe a tumour treatment. From memory it is not used in the book.
Well, it's the content of Mist's venom sacs. McIntyre doesn't say antidote, but then she dances around it. I'm using "antidote" broadly; I could say "cure", I suppose, would that help? Vanamonde (Talk)23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. Or treatment, remedy, drug, curative, solution. To me, an antidote is used against a poison. I suppose that a tumour could be considered a poison, but it seems a stretch.
"and she escapes with a bag of dreamsnakes while North's henchmen are in venom-induced comas. She finds Melissa similarly comatose, and escapes with her." "and she escapes ... and escapes". Is it possible to avoid the repetition? And the implication that she escapes twice.
"modern-day physicians use a Caduceus, or staff with intertwining snakes, as an emblem." 1. Why the upper case C? 2. Does this, or any other sources discuss the ancient associations of the caduceus, or snakes more generally?
Fixed the capital C, a copy-paste error. The source does discuss the meaning of the caduceus, and specifically its implication that its bearer is a messenger of the gods. It's a little removed from the analysis of Snake, so I was hesitant to use it, but I've added a little now. Vanamonde (Talk)23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Snakes have a number of other symbolic meanings". It would be nice to have a summary of them without having to click through the link, especially any relevant to the book.
This is also a little tricky...I've added a fragment, which hopefully helps; but he's devoted much of that section to discussing how widely depictions of snakes vary, and it's hard to pull a short summary from that. Vanamonde (Talk)23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Consider putting the text on Centre in a separate paragraph.
In "Themes"? Unless you feel strongly, I'd rather not. The implication is that though the city is named "center", it is at the margin; and this is the sort of linguistic play and symbolism discussed in the rest of the paragraph...
I would still prefer a separate paragraph, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it. So look as you have a coherent reason.
"Reception": I am unhappy that there is a section for positive comments; then one which starts with less positive ones but ends with two positive comments. It seems a bit PoV to me.
Hmm. I've tried not to sort the comments by whether they are positive, but by their content; the reception section (in theory) has a paragraph on recognition; a paragraph on prose; a paragraph on themes/symbology/characterization; and a paragraph on structure/plot/comparison to the short story. So I don't think I want to move material elsewhere, but if the ordering conveys POV (it isn't meant to) I'd be happy to reorder comments; Card, for instance, could go at the end; it's not a negative comment, but it's not terribly flattering either. Vanamonde (Talk)23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to push too hard, I was just flagging up my first impression. If you can jiggle it around a bit without wrecking your thematic order that would be good.
Pardon me for jumping on this one; I’ve tried to get an opinion on the ISFDB a couple of times at RSN. See here for example. If consensus is against using it, I can deal with that, but I feel it’s OK for purely bibliographic information. I wouldn’t use it for e.g. dates of birth of authors. To me the main argument in its favour is that SFE3 treats it as a reliable source: it says "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published", and includes thousands of links to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this one, I'm going to go a hard "no" for an FA. It MIGHT be allowable for a regular article but no way it meets the high quality threshhold. And this is the sort of basic bibliographic detail that should be findable elsewhere in better sources. Sorry, but no. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, I searched for an alternative source for the fact that the book is a fixup of the three stories, and couldn't find one; I did manage to dig up my copy of Foundation 16, which has Brian Stableford's review. Let me know if you want me to email you a scan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: The Stableford review has been digitized, so I have it; thank you though! I tried quite hard to find a source for the three stories that wasn't isfdb. The only options I can come up with are a) citing Phil Stephensen-Payne, whose website documents that the three stories were incorporated into Dreamsnake (the term "fixup" is covered by SFE), and b) omitting this fact. Ealdgyth would you accept http://www.philsp.com/ as a source? It's an SPS, but it is run by this man, who is a dedicated bibliographer and is recognized as such. Otherwise, I'm feeling a bit of a Catch-22; the detail is obscure enough that only the aficionados make any mention of it; but because it's known, omitting seems not to be an option. Vanamonde (Talk)18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stephensen-Payne has editorial control over that site and is a highly respected bibliographer, so I think his site is reliable. SFE3 has an entry on him and describes his website as "a particularly valuable resource". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: thanks; I'll wait to see what Ealdgyth has to say; if she deems the source insufficient, though, do you think that's a problem for comprehensiveness? Also, when you have a moment, I'd appreciate your own review, if that's alright to ask. Vanamonde (Talk)19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; I'll definitely be reviewing; just been a bit busy. If she says no, two other options are possible: does the book give the copyright attribution to the 1978 stories? And do you have the magazines with the stories in? A direct comparison of the text might be evidence. As opposed to a fixup, do you think it's possible that she wrote the novel knowing she could sell excerpts as additional stories before the release of the novel? The late timing makes me think that's possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I look forward to the review. As to the rest; I think a comparison of the text is viable, I think I was worried it was verging on OR. I don't have the magazines, but I could get them, I suppose. The book does not provide copyright attribution that is sufficient for this detail; it just says "a portion of this book appeared in..." I've worried over the timing for some time; I think it's more than likely it's not a true fixup, in that she probably wrote the novel, and then published excerpts. However, they were published, and the term is used, so omitting altogether seems iffy; and nobody that I have seem comments on it at all. No reviews of the story that I can find, and no reviews of the book mention the stories. Vanamonde (Talk)19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say that doing a comparison ourselves is probably verging into OR territory. To be honest, I think the most we can say is what is given on the copyright page - that portions appeared elsewhere. I think without the author specifically giving more detail, it's probably speculation by the various sites/people on why/what happened - that the stories were folded into the novel or that the novel had parts excerpted. Sometimes we're just not going to know everything, and that's okay. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Not to be a pain, but I wanted to make sure you'd seen the question about philsp.com. The reason I ask: Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand was also published in Analog, and was definitely not an excerpt; so the novel's copyright statement doesn't necessarily say anything about the other two; and without that the statement about it being a fixup is meaningless. I can omit it all, but if the bibliography is okay, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Vanamonde (Talk)04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no need to ping... I watchlist reviews until I say I'm finished or it is promoted/archived. I could deal with philsp.com as marginally high quality ... as long as its the only source that way.. which if we remove the isfdb it should be. Sorry for the delay, we were late getting in last night and I took some time to think it over. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the delay; and I'll keep your preferences about pinging in mind. I have replaced the isfdb source, and reworded it to make the text as agnostic as possible with respect to the fixup vs excerpts issue, without wandering into OR. Vanamonde (Talk)16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cooperative publisher, owned and run by the authors it publishes, listed here. As such I think it's as reliable for uncontroversial content. Given the standard we're trying to apply here, though, I've found an alternative, now added; blurb at the head of a McIntyre story in an edited anthology. Vanamonde (Talk)18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
Support. I went through this at GAN with a eye to FAC, and as a result have little to add here. I just have one comment: you mention "Grum" without explanation in the "Characterization" section. I would either position them in the plot at that point, or add a mention of them to the "Plot" section. Other than that nit the article is in very good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike; your GA review was exceptionally helpful. I have mentioned Grum in the synopsis (she was mentioned before, but not by name). Vanamonde (Talk)16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also conducted spot checks on some sources (now moved to the talk page). All problems that I flagged were fixed to my satisfaction, but I will not be supporting or opposing on 1c as the amount of text–source integrity is similar to what I've found on other FACs. (t · c) buidhe00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While North's henchmen are in venom-induced comas, There's no preliminaries for this. It's been many, many, many moons since I've read the book, but does Snake release the dreamsnakes or what?
Now checked; McIntyre doesn't make it very explicit at the end, but Snake has nothing to do with it; the entire community regularly partakes of Dreamsnake venom, and is presumably doing so when Snake escapes. I've added a piece of directly stated detail earlier, which should help, I think. Vanamonde (Talk)01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critic seems more accurate than scholar, but maybe that's just me
Which one of the uses are you asking about: or perhaps you mean all of them? I prefer "scholar" as it's a little more specific, when applicable; someone reviewing in a newspaper or such, I would call a critic. Vanamonde (Talk)01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Jesuit from the Southern US who taught at several Jesuit colleges and led Georgetown University, where he saw the completion of its flagship building. Ergo Sum04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"James Doonan was said to frequently recount a story of the time he was present at a High Mass in Baltimore, when word of the approaching Union Army caused the congregants to leave and take up arms. As a staunch supporter of the Confederacy, he was aggrieved at being forced by the Union Army to bear arms on their behalf and act as a sentinel for several hours" - Cited to p. 374 in the source, but some of the material is on page 373 as well, so both should be in the page range.
Comment only, no action needed - I find the preceding story a little odd, because Baltimore was under Union occupation for almost the entire war, but it's supported by an RS and could have happened during a brief span in 1861. It caught my attention, at least.
"Bishop John J. Keane, Catholic University's first rector,[17] attempted to resolve this dispute by unsuccessfully offering to purchase Georgetown University,[18] tendering this proposal to Doonan" - Chronology is a little unclear for this - implied to be 1887, but never directly stated. If this offer didn't occur in 1887, can you provide the year it did occur in?
Clarified that he also taught philosophy in Detroit. I can't determine at which institution, but if I were to speculate, it would be at Detroit College. The source is silent on this, though, so I'm leaving it out. Ergo Sum03:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Doonan then returned to Philadelphia, where he suffered a stroke, causing partial paralysis" - Is this in 1896 or 1897?
The Find A Grave external link gives his name as Jacobus Doonan, and this old source mentions a Jacobus Doonan that was also born on November 8, 1841 and entered studies in July 1857. So was Jacobus Doonan a reasonably valid alternate name? The FAG reference is ignorable, but the other is an old 1860 Jesuit catalog, so that may be something worth mentioning. The picture on FAG supposed to be of his tombstone shows it reading the name "Jacobus A. Doonan". Probably worth a passing mention or a footnote if you can find a decent source for it.
Jacobus is just the Latinzed form of James. For Jesuit documents that were written in Latin (including the gravestone), they just Latinized James. This was done with most first names in old Latin documents (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Ergo Sum03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New image is fine. However, for the unpublished portrait: I see the archivelink source claims "all rights reserved". Do you know the basis for that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, it's seemed that the Georgetown University archives sets all image copyrights as "rights reserved" by default until someone gets around to reviewing it. Since the copyright tag was changed from rights reserved to not reviewed, I would imagine that's what happened here. (As an aside, I haven't come across an image in the GU archives that does have an actual copyright evaluation). Ergo Sum12:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"during which time he oversaw the completion". Delete "time".
I don't know if that's grammatically correct. The which would be referring to "president" which isn't a temporal concept or "1882 to 1888" which isn't a noun. Having "which" refer back to it strikes my ear as a bit unusual. Ergo Sum05:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and construction of a new" → 'and the construction of a new'.
"He was the son of Ellen Doonan (née Barry) and Terrence Doonan, an engineer and wealthy railroad official and one of the first Catholics in Atlanta; Terrence was entrusted by the local priest with keeping the parish records until a pastor was appointed, and in his home, the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta was performed." A very long sentence. Suggest a break where the semi colon is.
"instead, they had been a part of Lord Baltimore's expedition" I think you mean 'in fact', not "instead". Also, another long sentence, consider breaking it.
In all the Georgetown presidents articles, I've proceeded on the blue sky principle regarding the order of their presidency. This is information I've pulled from List of presidents of Georgetown University, which itself relies on a source that does not explicitly say that Doonan or anyone else was X number, but rather lists all the presidents sequentially. So, it is necessarily an inference, but one that I think does not violate the original research policy. Ergo Sum19:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does however present a problem with regards to the documentation of {{infobox officeholder}}, which indicates order "should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more research. I knew some sources had conflicting ways of counting presidents (namely which presidents are counted as acting presidents and therefore not assigned a number). After digging deeper, it seems that the significantly predominant way of counting is to give the early acting presidents a number. Quite a few reliable sources can be found describing DeGioia as 48th, O'Donovan as 47th, and Healy as 46th, etc., going back several decades. Moreover, the 1891 Shea book comports with this numbering convention. Therefore, I've corrected Doonan's number and corrected the numbering for the other presidents and the List article. Ergo Sum21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"during which time he oversaw the completion and naming of Gaston Hall" - text supports the naming, but says only that he proposed its completion, not that it was actually completed during his tenure. Our article on the hall has it being completed well after his term.
What makes The Hoya a high-quality reliable source? Mosher's Magazine?
Mosher's is a self-published source by the Catholic Summer School of America. Because it is being used here as a source about itself, I believe it is allowed by policy. The Hoya I believe is considered an RS under the RSSM policy; namely, a reliable student media that is here reporting on its own institution. Ergo Sum19:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I've read and researched, its reliability and editorial oversight seems to be comparable to that of the Harvard Crimson, which RSSM gives as an example of a reliable student media source. I don't know of anything that would suggest otherwise. Ergo Sum22:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know anything about Doonan, Georgetown or topics connected to this article, so consider me a "non-expert" reviewer. Since the article had few sources and citations, I searched for sources on various databases, but could not find anything that was not already cited in the article. Therefore, even though the article is short, I consider the research "complete" unless other sources are found.
Prose review
"and in his home, the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta was performed." Rephrase to "and the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta was performed in his home."
It now reads: "...a pastor was appointed, the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta..." either the comma needs to be a semi-colon or "and" should be placed after the comma.
Optional: remove "Doonan's brother, John, also became a Jesuit priest." I believe that articles should only include information about other people if it relates to the biography of the article's topic. The article does not state how his brother's ordination as a Jesuit priest influenced or was relevant to James Doonan's life and is thus off-topic. I put it as optional because others might disagree, and I will not oppose/withhold my support if you decide to leave it in the article.
I generally agree, but in this instance, I think it adds something since (as far as I'm aware) it's pretty uncommon to have multiple family members not only become priests but also enter the same religious order. Ergo Sum01:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the source verifies that this was unusual for the time, I would add that to the article. Did James' ordination influence his brother, or vice-versa? Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's still sandwiching happening with the infobox and "Doonan bust portrait.png" I am not sure you need that portrait, as you have two others and the article is short. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added wikicode to various dates that insert a non-breaking space. This was recommended to me by a GOCE reviewer to ensure there is no break in the text when viewed on a smaller screen (like a smartphone). Please revert if you feel it was unhelpful.
Source check - pass
General note: Since most sources are in the public domain, you can add a link in the citation that directs readers to the specific page. For example, in citation 1 the code would be <ref name=shea285>{{harvnb|Shea|1891|p=[https://books.google.ca/books?id=YdRAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA285 285]}}</ref>. This makes it easier for readers to verify information on their own.
Unless commented below, all the refs were checked and verified except ref 8, which I could not access.
Ref 1d: The article says, "Doonan became the acting president and vice rector" while the source says "temporary president or Vice-Rector."
At this time, in Jesuit institutions, a vice rector was the equivalent of an acting president, hence the source's explanation that vice rector means temporary or acting president. Ergo Sum19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3b should be deleted, as it is cited in the next sentence.
Ref 16: Article says, "Doonan purchased in 1885 two cannons from St. Inigoes, Maryland, for $50" but the source doesn't verify this info. The source says the cannons were taken to St. Inigoes for restoration but doesn't specify that St. Inigoes owned them before Doonan purchased them.
The way I read the source is that in 1824, they were removed from the river and brought to St. Inigoes, where they remained until Doonan bought them in 1885. The article's reference to "from St. Inigoes" does not mean that St. Inigoes owned them but that they were in St. Inigoes at the time he bought them. Ergo Sum20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 and 25: I could not verify the information. Is it the wrong page number?
For ref 24, I've changed it to p. 195 from 196. The sentence it supports says he was a lecturer at the school and the ref supports it because p. 195 lists his name, which is part of the section that lists many of the lecturers. Ref 25 cites to p. 183, which supports the statement about the subjects he lectured in. Ergo Sum20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 30: Is Jacobus A. Doonan the same person as James A. Doonan? Why is the name different?
At this time, it was still common for Jesuit records etc. to be written entirely in Latin. Hence, his name in the document is Latinized from James to Jacobus. Ergo Sum20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my general note in the source review about linking page numbers?
Sorry, I forgot to respond. I generally prefer not to put links to pages in the inline citations themselves when convenience links are already included in the sources citations. I think it clutters the citation (and also is a fair bit of work to do!). Ergo Sum02:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Wanted to make sure you read it and considered it.
" an engineer and wealthy railroad official and one of the first Catholics in Atlanta." Too many ands. Replace the first and with a comma?
"until a pastor was appointed, the first Catholic baptism in Atlanta was performed in his home." The comma needs to be replaced with a semi-colon or "and"
This article is about the capital city of Rwanda, Kigali, my home for a few years in the mid-2000s. Founded by the German explorer and governor, Richard Kandt, it became capital on Rwandan independence in 1962. It has grown rapidly since the 1990-94 civil war and genocide and is now home to lots of shiny new buildings, making it fairly unrecognisable even compared to when I lived there! Note that this is my second current FAC nom, as I am also a co-nom on the 2018 EFL League Two play-off Final with The Rambling Man (who also performed the GA review for Kigali). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox caption mentions four landmarks, but there are only three images? Does the middle image contain two? If so suggest clarifying which is which
File:Rwanda_KigaliDists.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
They don't necessarily have to be chopped if they would be in the public domain for another reason, for example age, but they would need tagging to indicate that. These images do not currently have such tagging: Kigali_Convention_Centre.jpg, Kigali_Genocide_Memorial_Centre_-_Flickr_-_Dave_Proffer_(1)_-_cropped.jpg, Ste.-Famille_Church_-_Genocide_Site_-_Kigali_-_Rwanda.jpg, Kigali_skyline_closeup.jpg, University_of_Rwanda_headquarters.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On those two, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't meet the threshold of originality. However, it would not be wrong to tag those as well, in case other reviewers may have a different interpretation - that element is subjective. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think I have resolved all the issues you raised: Alt text has been added throughout, a source has been added for the districts map, and all building images either (a) removed, (b) tagged, or (c) uploaded locally. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reads well, I like the amount of background information that helps with understanding.
the city was founded in 1908 – Later in the "Colonial period" section, it is somehow indicated that the city was already existing when Kandt arrived there: He chose to make his headquarters in Kigali; and no mention anymore that he founded it.
This seems to result from a couple of edits in the last few months that I hadn't spotted. (1) the date of founding should be 1907, and (2) the notion that the city was founded prior to 1907 and was the capital of the kings in the 16th century appears to be mostly WP:FRINGE. I have added some lines to explain this, with a source. — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more powerful neighbours, Bugesera – the latter links to modern Bugesera District, not sure if this is the correct article?
The RPF began attacking from the north – As the events discussed in the previous sentences took place in the city, the reader will assume "from the north of the city". Rather, it means "from the north of the country". Maybe specify for better flow.
Travel publisher Rough Guides has described – Maybe add the year of publication to make clear we are no longer in the 1930s? I initially thought it is some historic account.
Maybe add the human development index to the text; it is mentioned in the infobox, but it would be interesting to also state the tendency (did it, or any other similar measure, increase or decrease in recent years)?
Due to its status as a colonial capital, Kigali was not historically the hub of Rwanda's cultural heritage – This does not seem logical. Being a colonial capital does not preclude being a hub of cultural heritage?
The country's traditional dance, a choreographed routine consisting of three components: the umushagiriro (cow dance), the intore (dance of heroes) and drumming, originated in the royal court at Nyanza – the colon within the sentence disrupts reading flow quite a bit, maybe reformulate.
during the northern-hemisphere summer. Isn't the country it in the southern hemisphere? It should say "winter", then.
Well, that was literally what is written in the source. And the seasons as we know them away from the equator don't really exist in Rwanda anyway. But to be clearer, I've switched it to "July or August" with an alternative source. — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
along with private universities the Kigali Independent University (ULK) and the University of Lay Adventists of Kigali – there is a "," missing, and possibly a "were founded"?
I suggest to add at least one image that shows the typical aura of the city, e.g. a street with people in it. From the pictures present in the article, I didn't get a good impression on how it actually looks there. You have a nice one on your user page, for example.
Unfortunately the picture on my user page would probably fall foul of the Freedom of Panorama issues which are mentioned by Nikki above, as it features two of Kigali's office towers. I have found a street scene on Flickr though without such issue, which is now in the infobox. If there are anyother pics you think might be valuable, let me know. — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything about security and crime rates, and how this compares with other large cities in the region?
The "increase in average temperature" sentence is cited to a 2013 Strategic Foresight report; I think the reader should be aware inline that this is from 2013. Perhaps "... over the fifty years to 2013"? Or use an "as of" phrase.
with the boundaries of the city expanded: what does this mean? Administrative boundaries? If it just means that the built-up area within the administrative boundaries expanded, I'm not sure it's worth mentioning.
Clarified, it is the administrative boundaries and I've added a note that this is part of the cause of the population doubling. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NISR classifies 21% of the workforce as being employed in "other services", which include utilities as well as financial services, including banking, pensions, insurance, microfinance, and the Rwanda Stock Exchange, which launched in 2011. The syntax here is confusing, with "include ... including".
This includes Village Urugwiro in Kacyiru, the office of the president, the Chamber of Deputies and Senate in Kimihurura. Should this have an "and" before "the Chamber"? If not I don't understand the sentence.
Inanga, Traditional Rwandan instrument during the introduction wedding in Kigali, Rwanda This is the caption for an image; it needs a citation, but also I don't understand what "during the introduction wedding" means.
Neither do I, really. I didn't add that particular image myself! Since its significance is unclear, and the instrument in question isn't discussed in the article, I have replaced it with a pic of traditional dancers. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of Genocide Memorial Day says that Kagame addresses the nation on that day. Wouldn't it be better just to say "the President"? There's nothing about the ceremony that is specific to Kagame, is there?
Suspect some of the sources may be called out as "how do you explain these are "top notch"?" such as Bus Planet...
I think I could spend a little longer delving around those refs so perhaps just go through and sanity check all the publishers/websites are consistently linked, all parameters are used consistently (i.e. accessdates are used on all online refs instead of 95% of them). I understand the Weather box query is a general issue but MOS compliance (as you know) is "mandatory" so if our experts confirm it's fine then brilliant, otherwise some work to do there. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: The table in {{Weather box}} does a very good job of meeting MOS:DTT with all scopes properly set. The only thing I'd grumble about is that many of the colour combinations added to the cells are difficult for me to read, particularly combinations like 11 which fail WCAG AAA. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean it's OK to keep it as is? I think someone else set up the parameters for this one, so I've no idea if they're optimal or not... — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll have a tinker with them tomorrow. I'm technically red-green colourblind myself actually, although it's sort of a "mild" case, and other than being barred from ever being a pilot, it has little practical effect on my life ... — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if you might considering adding something like "|format=PDF" to the MINEDUC and NISR refs, just to make it clear to readers that clicking the link won't open a new page, but will initiate a download
I'm a bit confused by your designation of bibliography. I assumed that sources where you reference more than one page are put there, but refs like Mamdani, Appiah, Watson et al. are referencing a single page, while refs such as Fegley are also referencing a single page but cited in text
Yeah, I think the intention was to cite inline where there was just a single page, but obviously I wasn't doing it very consistently. To make it simpler to manage I've flipped everything that uses page numbers over to sfn referencing, even if it's just a single occurrence of that page. — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that seems like the most appropriate solution
I apologize and recognize how nitpicking these comments are—though I hope you understand I'm addressing optimal consistency and accessibility, not trying to enforce any citation style on your work
I'm not sure about citing wikileaks in ref 48, seems to be veering on the edge of being a primary source, and I'm not sure we have any way of telling that the wikileaks documents hasn't been altered from the original. Would recommend it is replaced
Fair enough. I can't find exactly the same info anywhere so have removed that part, but I have added a note that life largely continued as normal amid "widespread popular relief". — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am hesitant about google maps as well, but if there is no suitable alternative, I understand the need
Hmmm, any particular reason? I've not heard about Google Maps being off-limits before, we even have "Featured article candidates/Featured log" (Map). Google Maps. No URL entered.... — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just stood out to me as rather odd, but I suppose I don't have any real grevienve with it. Only mentioned in case you had a higher quality source with the same information available—don't worry about it
The youtube ref is also less than ideal, any news/web sources available for this?
Thanks for your effort here, everything is looking a lot better. I have two remaining points, 1) Completely optional, but if you want to reinsert the Wikileaks info, it may be appropriate to do so if you have something like "According to a report in Wikieaks..." in the text it self. 2) Ref 70 seems to be missing a page number and should (I believe) be in the biblio like the rest. Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: (1) it turns out the original cable is available on the US Department of State's own website (having been declassified in 2005), so linking to the Wikileaks isn't necessary, I've now cited it directly to the horse's mouth. Re (2) the work in question is a map rather than a book, so it doesn't have page numbers. Should I nonetheless put it into the bibliography? I have zero opinion on which option is better, so will defer to whatever you say is best! — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Failed Architecture a high-quality reliable source? Time.is? Culture Trip? TechCrunch?
I have replaced the FailedArchitecture, Time.is and CultureTrip refs. TechCrunch looks OK to me - it has editorial control, and is owned by Verizon. Threads at WP:RSN don't seem to have rejected it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this objection - consensus is that TechCrunch is fine for WP:V purposes, although it may not always be suitable for notability. But anyway, I have tweaked the text a bit and found alternative sources. — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have added paragraphs on each of the topics you mention above. I think this should conclude the points you raise, so please could you have another look when you get a chance? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology content is broadly good - not convinced we need Kagame's dates in there, and the World Factbook ref needs reformatting (World Factbook is a work title, not part of the page title).
Infrastructure and media content are both good individually, but not as a single section - suggest splitting. See for example WP:CITSTRUCT. Also check throughout for formatting consistency - eg % vs "per cent", [[The New Times (Rwanda)|The New Times]] vs [[The New Times (Rwanda)]], etc. Finally, not sure what is meant by "partially government" - elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild: thanks for the reminder, and I haven't forgotten. The last few points that Nikki mentions will require a little bit more work, but I've made a start on the power generation side. Hopefully I'll get them done in the next few days. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an Indian actress who was recently seen in the Hollywood blockbuster Tenet. Many people who saw her for the first time in this film didn't know this lady has quite a career behind her. It's hard to find high-quality articles about Indian actors from her era owing to the limited coverage found online compared to publications in the west. This is this article's second go at FAC; last time it actually had a fair share of support, but it ended up becoming a mess. But it proved to be good for the article; I've spent time to improve it, digging in the archives to find the best sources available, including books and scholarly journals, adding more information, and polishing the prose, as recently done with the help of an independent copyeditor from GoCE. I think it is much better now. Needless to say, I'll be happy to address constructive comments. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This was a request by another reviewer who said British English requires articles. I applied it across the board. Let me know if you suggest removing it anyway. Shahid • Talk2me21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems a bit all over the place - just seems to be a shortened history section. I'd much rather see that she won X many awards, and then a summary of her media image, etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The media image is incorporated into the summary of her career - namely her initial roles relying on her beauty, mention of her sex appeal, and her desire to expand her range and prove her mettle as an actor. The lead is a summary of her career and it is a chronological one because honestly she is hardly even known for anything other than her film career. When not acting, she is not known for engaging in any special off-screen activity and is not in the public eye. I agree that in some cases the mention of awards is better off summarised in one line. It's just that in this case the awards fit really well into her career description, and there aren't that many of them, like in the case of, say, Meryl Streep, where it's almost impossible to make a readable lead with all her individual awards mentioned. Shahid • Talk2me21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She took on more serious parts of troubled women in films ranging from mainstream to neorealist parallel cinema, and received acclaim for her performances in films including Kaash (1987), Drishti (1990), Lekin... (1991), and Rudaali (1993).[2] - I don't think this is contentious enough to warrant a citation in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Update from the 14th of January: Hi, Lee Vilenski - I've expanded the lead now to include better description of hr roles, reception of her work, and so on - the lead is still rather chronological because everything fits just fine into this structure, but I think it is more representative and gives the readers a better sense of her work and standing in the industry) I was very careful not to make it rely on too much puffery and have a balanced lede where everything is within context. Her status as a leading actress of Hindi cinema, her beauty and critical acclaimed roles are there, but attached to her work. From my experience with FAs on actors, it is better to let the achievements speak for themselves, and that's what I tried to do here. Shahid • Talk2me21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an infant, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it. - what does this even mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenage daughter of a Christian fisherman from Goa. The story follows the love affair between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship due to class prejudice - I don't see how this has anything to do with her. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was the first role of her career and to this day perhaps the film she is most associated with, we thought there was room for more detail of the plot. This version was actually worked out by several editors in the previous FAC - since the core issue of the film is class prejudice and a love story between a Hindu and a Christian, we thought it was crucial to mention the other star's role to the understanding of her character. Shahid • Talk2me21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2008, the web portal Rediff.com ranked her performance in Bobby as the fourth-best female debut of all-time in Hindi cinema: "An elfin little girl with big, lovely eyes, nobody quite portrayed innocence as memorably as Dimple in her first outing. She was candid, striking, and a true natural ... here was a girl who would redefine glamour and grace, and make it look very, very easy indeed." - web portals don't talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight" - newspapers don't speak either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rediff.com noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work." - similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay - I've had another read through - the only remaining thing I have a question about, is that you have a title under: Media image and artistry - what does artistry mean in this context, and what does it have to do with media image? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, thank you very much, Lee. The section covers both her public image in the media (hence media image), career development, and artistry in terms of her role choices, acting style and prowess as seen and analysed by film critics. That's why I believe it is related. I believe the title pretty much represents what the section says. I could change it to "Publc image and artistry" or "Public image and reception". Shahid • Talk2me14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing is "artistry" doesn't mean "role choices", I think "public image and reception" if we are talking about what the media say is a much easier concept to understand. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'At age 15, she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna.' This sentence is a bit unclear. Was it an arranged marriage or love?
It wasn't an arranged marriage, that's why I wrote "agreed" and concluded with "after a short courtship" so readers know it was fully voluntary. Shahid • Talk2me10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Movies' should be replaced with 'film' since the former is pretty informal.
Note that this is not a spot check; only a review of the sources. Can you please explain why the following sources are reliable? This may help if you want to know what I mean.
Open
Rediff
Indian Times
Mumbai Mirror
The Tribune
Firstpost
Hindustan Times
Mint
Mid Day
Bangalore Mirror
IBN Live (link is also dead; swap to archive)
NDTV Movies
Param Arunachalam
Some notes on ref formatting:
Chopra, Anuprama and Chopra, Shaili share a citeref (Chopra 2014)
I think "K. Jha, Subhash" should be "Jha, Subhash K." (few fixes for that one)
Rediff.com is a popular web portal, and many of its articles related to film (here we have mostly film reviews) are written by notable authors (wikilinks exist for most, I believe). So are Firstpost and IBN Live, which are owned by Network18 Group (the latter's international coverage is provided by CNN), and NDTV is a well-known Indian news website - its two channels have received Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards. Most of these are used for film reviews, interviews, which are written by leading film writers.
Indiatimes (The Times of India), Mumbai Mirror, Bangalore Mirror are newspapers published by The Times Group; similarly, The Tribune (Chandigarh), Hindustan Times, Mint, Mid Day -- all leading and frequently cited newspapers which have been in print for decades (if not over a century). I cared to use only articles with bylines and proper attribution. The great majority of them are used to support either very basic information on films (which could be supported by other reliable sources), and again, mostly columns, film reviews and interviews. Claims found more contentious were referenced to books. Acutally, the best sources available were used for each claim.
Param Arunachalam is actually the name of the author of the book BollySwar, which is mostly used for very basic information on films like year of release, director.
Fixed the archived link, the shared citeref, and the Jha instance.
I'm fine with all except Rediff.com. The website doesn't strike me as broadly usable, with most of the writing being tagged to "Rediff staff", mostly clickbait journalism, with titles like "Guess who's in this photo!". Following up with what Shahid said about most of their names being wiki-linked, that is either not true or they haven't been wiki-linked. This is not especially journalistic to me, and doesn't speak to a reputable, large outlet. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, let me try to change your mind about this one as well. :) Rediff.com is used mostly for interviews and reviews exactly of the kind that you've cited and, as you probably know, film magazines/websites sometimes use lingo which is not particularly journalistic. Google books shows books citing Rediff.com on numerous occasions; just a quick check shows similar results from The New York Times, where the website is used as a source several times. Your link above is attributed to Raja Sen, a film critic who writes today for Hindustan Times. The other references from Rediff on the article include writers like Dinesh Raheja and Sukanya Verma and all but two other instances provide proper attribution with full author names. Just to elaborate a little more on the site, author Mira Kamdar (herself an award-winning writer, also writing for NYT, among other things) called Rediff.com "the number one Web portal in India" in her 2008 book Planet India: The Turbulent Rise of the World's Largest Democracy. Scholar Madhavi Mallapragada wrote similar things in a 2018 chapter for The SAGE Handbook of Web History (p.393). The journal Trends in Information Management took note of its importance and made interesting obervations about its impact (link). Another scholar, Vijaya Thyil, calls it "one of the premier worldwide online providers of news, information, communication, entertainment and shopping services to Indians worldwide" (link, no online version exists but you can verify the quote online). Shahid • Talk2me00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that many of the references used are from the site's early period; what was its editorial policy during that time? I also see that while some of the Rediff sources are written by noted film reviewers, eg. FN20, others have no author credited, or credit authors without wikilinks. Can you elaborate on these in particular? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I can't see its editorial policy in the archives, but just looking at its list of commentators from as early as 1999, you can see some of the leading and high-profile writers and journalists in India. In 2000 and 2001, the site received two Online Journalism Awards for exceptional reporting (link). I forgot to mention that Rediff.com also owned the NYC-based newspaper India Abroad up until last year. As for the two sources where no authors are mentioned, both are merely film reviews with no contentious information, and it's used exactly in that context on the article (and I'm not sure it's a necessity when the source is reliable). That most other journalists and reviewers have no wikilinks actually says less about them - it's a common problem here with Indian journalists and authors. There is a great number of noted film critics, not just from Rediff, who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. As I mentioned above Raja Sen, who is often cited in newspapers and is today a writer for Hindustan Times, the list of writers on this article alone includes Vicky Lalwani (later a Mumbai Mirroreditor) and Suparn Verma (today a film director who has directed films like EKEH). Shahid • Talk2me10:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. My concern is that having notable writers doesn't necessarily make the early site reliable. Based on my reading of the site's history, it appears that it initially was designed as a digital advertising service rather than a journalistic endeavour. Do you have a link to the current editorial policy? Do we know what staff write uncredited pieces? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. Sadly they do not appear to publish any editorial policy. I see another list of their journalists from 2003 and their credentials. As for the uncredited pieces, these are movie specials from the entertainment section, often they are just an extension of previous pieces which is impossible to link to today. For example, this interview with Kapadia is attributed to "The Rediff US Special". It seems like the second part of this article, which was written by Suleman Din. I didn't mention it because it wasn't explicit enough. I'm not at all sure you are correct about the site starting as an advertising service, especially because I see on Google books that it was used as a source even before the 2000s. Shahid • Talk2me15:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you Nikkimaria. It appears to have been very early in the day and I wouldn't say it totally undemines its reliability even at that point of time. More importantly, I would argue it doesn't tell us much about the references used in this article, which are film reviews and interviews, and most of the published after 2000 (except two, an interview and a review from 1997). I see that The New York Times called it "India's most successful portal Web site" (link) already in 2000 and would cite it as a source for articles in 2003. I somehow doubt it could be considered less reliable even for non-contentious information of the kind this article includes. As I mentioned above it won awards for journalism in 2000-2001; it was around that time that it acquired the India Abroad newspaper. Except for two refs, all the refs on this article are dated even much later than 2004. More articles about its state back then include this interview with its CEO on Hindustan Times. I do believe it is a good source especially for the kind of info it supports, and in the case of sources from the 1990s in particular, they are pretty much the best available because no other archives exist for the major publications like they do for those in the west. What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think. I'm willing to accept most of the uses of this source, but have reservations about the following footnotes: 69, 162, 188, 160, 166. The latter three of these have named authors, but I haven't been able to track down information about them; do you have any details you could share? 69 is used to support what seems to be a significant claim rather than a reviewer opinion. 162 is less significant, but doesn't seem particularly credible as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for your time. I have to say I'm a little surprised that this source would be deemed unreliable or even significantly less reliable. We've been using Rediff for years now, I can't think of a single FA about an Indian actor or film (and there are many) which doesn't use it (I know it's not a very valid argument and other stuff exists and so on). I see that it was questioned on other FAs and then accepted. I should repeat again that just a quick go through Google search shows numerous results where it's used as a source, both early in the day and nowadays of course, it's cited by The New York Times, LA Times, The Hollywood Reporter, it owned what seems to have been a rather respected newspaper (India Abroad); it won awards for journalism. I can't see how particular references could be dismissed just because no bylines are provided (which happens a lot even in newspapers and no Wikipedia policy demands it) or authors who are not particularly well known. I think it is a sad case with Indian sources in particular, where it's easy to dismiss their credibility because they lack the high circulation of their western counterparts. Please do not think I'm referring to you, it's just something I've witnessed off late particularly on AfDs, where a massive attack on Indian films took place, with some famous films being considered non-notable, and I find it a little upsetting. To the matter at hand:
N69: I don't like it either; removed it, replaced with better sources from other publications.
160 (now 161): V.S. Srinivasan is a Chennai-based art critic and writer (according to The Hindu also known as VSV) who has conducted numerous interviews for Rediff for a good few years with all the big names in the industry, from directors to actors, in addition to writing reviews and other articles related to film and music. He's active today as a local writer, thus making it highly difficult to trace his work; he was executive editor of the Tamil-language magazine Vikatan and writes for the Tamil section of The Hindu newspaper in Chennai.
162 (now 163): It shares the review from the trade magazine Film Information. There's just no other source giving a review of Kapadia's work in the film, and it gives some negative commentary about her role choice which is essential for the article.
166 (now 167): again, it's a film review; Sharmila Taliculam is probably not very active today in the field. Interestingly, her interview with Shyam Benegal from Rediff is cited in the book New Indian Cinema in Post-Independence India, about Benegal's work. I could remove this review if you insist, I just do not think it is very problematic.
188 (now 189): removed. this is my mistake, it is from Rediff's box office section. For some reason they gave credit to the designer; the author is not mentioned. I'm removing this source anyway because there are better ones.
Thanks. 161/167 are fine with this additional information. One last question regarding 163: you say it shares the review from Film Information - is this an authorized republication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I believe it is, if they post it; they do credit the original source after all. I see that it is regularly cited on Rediff, and the publisher and editor of the magazine, Komal Nahta has written a few pieces for Rediff himself and has been interviewed numerous times by Rediff as a commentator on different articles on film. Shahid • Talk2me14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid making text appear smaller than it naturally would per MOS:FONTSIZE, especially in places like infoboxes. That just needlessly makes it harder on the eyes to read.
After separating from her husband, is it known for certain whether they formally divorced/got the marriage annulled before he died? Infobox appears to suggest no, but it would help to be more explicit within the prose.
"similarly became actors and retired after settling down"..... see previous comment, and daughters' retirements seems better for their own articles.
Changed to actresses, but I think the bit about their retirement after marriage (unless you insist) does have some relevance here because it does say something about their values and upbringing (which somewhat reflects her own retirement). Shahid • Talk2me01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the use of "despite" from "failed to attract viewers in Indian cinemas despite success in the Soviet Union" implies, the popularity of a film in one place is a separate factor from how it performs in others.
202: I am not so sure that the critical and economic reception of Luck by Chance bit is supported by this source.
It partly supports the critical reception (which is essentially supported by the previous source by The Hindu), quoting some approving reviews, but actually it's there to supports its economic outcome - see p. 219 which says that it "wasn't very successful at the boc office". Shahid • Talk2me19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
134: Source supports the award but I am not so sure it supports the moviegoers sentence.
It does, and it does so rather explicitly (p. 12): "when it was released the film was appreciated by the general audience as well as the more exacting film critics."
200: Is "It will release directly on Video and Pay-Per-View DTH (Direct-To-Home) - the first Hindi film to be premiered directly on home entertainment platforms." (source) the same thing as "was the first Hindi film to be distributed via pay-per-view direct-to-home (DTH) platforms." (article)?
Having read the entire article, I believe that's what they mean (the PPV DTH service being the first instance of its sort because films had always released on home video), but anyway, revised to agree with source. Shahid • Talk2me19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
116: Not sure that " insisted they appear natural on screen" is supported by the source.
181: It does support the part about Kapadia's presence improving the "dead ends" which isn't the same thing as what the article says.
Well it was the version that we worked out during the previous review, and I think considering the two reviews it is a pretty fair summary. The quote from the review appeared on the article, and it was found less necessary. I can readd the quote itself, if you think it's better. Shahid • Talk2me19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
29: What information does this source support that the other one doesn't?
Well it is now - there used to be an onlie link to a PDF version of the Manushi articles, but they strangely removed them all from their website. Shahid • Talk2me19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
120: Can't access this.
I know, there was a full preview to this book several years ago and I don't have any access either - this page included a film review by the author. Shahid • Talk2me19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I have the time to do a full review. I am aware that the previous FAC for this article became rather nasty, and I have no wish to revisit all of it. However, a number of useful sources were provided here, and should be used. I am also a little concerned at the abundance of quotes, and would prefer more paraphrasing. Vanamonde (Talk)03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree regarding the number of quotations. They are arguably too abundant to meet MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, thanks for stopping by! The link you've cited actually takes the sources from this very article; all these sources are used on the article (if relevant). Please look at the bibliography section; there is a considerable number of books and scholarly journals.
As for the quotes, the article contained a great amount of quotes in the past, and a lot of paraphrasing has been done and many quotes removed. But you can't paraphrase them all, and overuse is subjective. After all, most of the quotes are from reviews and this is common practice in articles about artists (and actors in particular, please have a look at other FAs on actors just for reference). Maybe it's a greater problem that needs to be addressed on a larger scale. If you see particular quotes you feel could be paraphrased, please cite them. I'll go over the article and remove whatever I think could be spared. Shahid • Talk2me11:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed whatever I thought could be removed or paraphrased. I believe the number of quotations is fair and wouldn't personally consider it abundant. Looking at previous successful FACs on other actors, I see similar complaints, but I find that it is practically impossible to write a decent entry of an actor's career without reception of their work and their own approach to their work, all of which requires proper attribution. Right now, the career section mentions 58 films, and only 22 roles have quotes from critics, which I wouldn't call excessive. In several instances, the text presents commentary from a critic (or scholar) but written in my own words (see Haque (1991), Krantiveer (1994), Hum Kaun Hai (2004), Pyaar Mein Twist (2005)). That being said, just as I state above, please do let me know if there's anything else you think could be paraphrased. Shahid • Talk2me12:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pruning the number of quotes. I'm still stretched for time, and cannot do a full review; so if there is consensus for promotion here, I will not stand in the way. I am slightly concerned there are still sourcing and comprehensiveness issues. For instance; where do the sources say she agreed to her marriage at age 16? For instance; Kapadia has campaigned for the Indian National Congress in several elections, and was rumoured to be the party's candidate in an election in 2012, I believe. There's a brief mention of this in the early section, but the party isn't mentioned at all. For instance; I happened to check this source; the article says "Hindi movie-goers", where the source says "Bollywood", and they aren't quite analogous. None of this warrants an oppose, especially given that I haven't done a comprehensive review; but it is somewhat concerning, and if there's more time available here, I'd like to do a sweep for sources myself. Vanamonde (Talk)00:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum; the Virdi source says explicitly that Khanna forbade Kapadia from working in the film industry during their marriage. Given that, we really ought not to be using the euphemistic "retired"; if it wasn't her choice, it should not be portrayed as such. Vanamonde (Talk)00:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should be thanking you, Vanamonde93. First, I've changed two instances, including the removal of "agreed" (I used agreed because every source excplicitly says she married him after a short courtship, which I thought could directly mean she agreed to the marriage) and the movie-goers part. As for the INC campaign, I'm fully aware of the 2012 election rumours, but they were short-lived and never materialised and remained rumours and she hasn't dicussed it herself, so I figured it's best to avoid what could well be dismissed as pure speculation. There is a mention of her campaigning for Khanna's election, I just thought no further additions were called for because their relevance is more in relation to her relationship with Khanna and not her own political aspiration, which she never spoke of. I can add the part if you think it's essential (edit: information added anyway).
As for retired; indeed, she left because he forbade her from acting, but I somehow do not think that the semantic meaning of "retiring" necessarily entails voluntary retirement, especially if we explain the direct reason behind it; she could well be retired upon her husband's gratitious demand and it would still be retirement. But I do not at all think it's a big deal anyway - what other word would you rather use? Maybe "quit" is better? Just for the record, I think the following quote by Shaili Chopra who interviewed Kapadia for a chapter in her book "When I Was 25: The Leaders Look Back" touches upon the two points raised by you:
Her marriage to the country's first superstar was something that changed who she was, and how the world viewed her. She was the chosen one. Rajesh Khanna had broken many hearts and was the biggest star of a long filmy era. He was the one man who went down in history to deliver multiple (one count stands at 15 odd) hits single handedly. Dimple was smitten. She was overwhelmed by this proposal from a man who was not only handsome but also a talented superstar. And a fifteen year age difference was not to deter her. Dimple married as a teenager with the understanding that Bobby was the first and last movie of her life. She didn't succumb to this thought, she accepted it. She savoured the success of that one movie enough, and was so in love that she didn't care about what she had spawned unwittingly—a revolution called Bobby.
As we can see, it first shows that she was overwhelmed by that proposal, so there was indeed some sort of agreement on her part. The same goes for quitting films; it was more complex than it seems. She was forced into it in a way but also accepted it at the same time. Please do let me know what you think about the wording of 'retire' versus 'quit' or anything else you think would suit the situation better. I trust your judgement (so far, I've changed it to "quit"). Shahid • Talk2me01:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re; election candidacy; okay, that's reasonable. re: retirement; I don't think we should be dancing around this point. If the best source you have (and that seems to be Virdi) is saying Khanna forbade her from acting, then we should be saying that in Wikipedia's voice wherever it appears. The same goes for her marriage. We can't say she was forced into that in Wikipedia's voice, but implying choice where it likely didn't exist isn't great either. Vanamonde (Talk)02:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, great - all points addressed if so (retire -> quit; remove 'agreed'; Khanna's party mentioned). Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks and regards, Shahid • Talk2me09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me for now; I don't feel able to support without doing an examination of prose and sources myself, but I do not oppose promotion either. Vanamonde (Talk)16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, the first actresses who starred in women-centred action films, from the lead is not entirely accurate. Later on, the article specifies this as new trend of women-centred revenge films so I would change the lead to better reflect this. I would also specify that this is referencing Hindi film in general as I doubt this is accurate for film in general.
Added "Hindi" but the part is absolutely accurate and it actually refers more to the part in the media section which says that she was among the first actresses who acted in female-centred Hindi action films (second paragraph). Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this quote, "embraced Hinduism", entirely necessary? Would it be possible to paraphrase this?
As you know, there was a lot of debate pertaining to this part, and the solution was to just quote it without presenting our own interpretation of the text and what exactly the writer means by that phrase - just to let the reader come to their own conclusions. Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. I do remember that debate (although I disengaged from it mostly). I see your point, and thank you for explaining it to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about the Rediff.com quote at the end of the "Debut (1973)" section. It is quite long and it is already made quite clear in earlier parts of the same paragraph how much Kapadia was praised for this performance. It may be worthwhile to add a sentence on how retrospective reviews of her performance have still remained positive, but I think this quote is a little over-kill and may be more appropriate for the Bobby article than here.
I'll shorten it but I wouldn't entirely remove it because it really is, perhaps to this day, her most famous role. Everyone I know still calls her Bobby. If you insist I'll remove it. Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting. I was more so concerned about having a quote taking up three lines of text, but I do see your point. Thank you for the follow-up here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, because she was nervous and "literally shivering" while performing it,, seems a little unnecessarily wordy. While the "literally shivering" quote is nice, I am not sure it is really needed since the reader already knows she was nervous. Just pointing this out as the article is already quite long (and will likely only grow as her career continues) so it would be helpful to condense things like this when possible.
Removing the nervous part. I think the article is not as long as it could have been, but I have to say, I specifically added that part to show how lacking she was in confidence when she came back to the movies and that it wasn't at all an easy or natural decision for her. Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, and wished it would have had more screen time in the film, reads rather awkwardly to me, since the "it" here is referring back to the role. I would instead say something like and wished she had more screen time in the film.
This part, who miscarries a pregnancy following an assault, reads awkwardly to me, as I have never heard the phrase "miscarries a pregnancy" before this. I would instead say something along the lines of who has a miscarriage following an assault.
I have received a note in the past to avoid one-word quotes as they generally do not add much and can take away from the effectiveness of other quotes. I would avoid the one-word quote in this instance, called the film an "embarrassment", for this reason.
For this part, favourably by a number of American critics, I would remove "a number of" as it is rather vague and more filler than particularly helpful.
I would avoid using the word "flop" in this part, within two weeks it was declared a flop, and in the article in general as I read that as too informal and too much like slang for a Wikipedia article.
This part, Kapadia played a strict store owner and Kapoor Khan's mother, is a little off to me as the first description, a strict store owner, is about the character in the film, but the second, Kapoor Khan's mother, is referencing the actor and is more of an out-of-universe explanation. Having these two things in the same sentence reads a little off to me as I initially thought Kapoor Khan was a character in the film.
I would revise this part Critics reacted positively to her appearance, as it could be interpreted as critics talking about her physical appearance and not her role and/or performance.
First FAC nom on the first day of a new year! This article is about a football match played between Wales and Scotland in 1876. The match was the first fixture ever played by Wales and the first time Scotland had played against a team other than England. The result proved to be rather one-sided in favour of the more experienced Scots, but the match set the groundwork for, among other things, the start of the British Home Championship. This was taken to GA a few years ago, but I've spent sometime expanding and fine tuning and think it's in pretty good shape for a run at FAC now. As ever, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen in the repeat of 1876 in the opening sentence. I know these are notoriously difficult to start but if it's possible, we probably should avoid the repetition.
I did wonder about this but couldn't think of a better way. What's your thoughts on removing the year from the date, as 1876 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence? I did consider that but wondered if it would be clear enough? Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very little discussion of Scotland in the "The challenge" section.
By this point, Scotland were entering their seventh international fixture, so they were pretty well established at this point. Other than accepting an invitation to play, they didn't have much major preparation to do really. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" from English club, Oswestry were" not Oswestry Town? and I would have a comma after the club name.
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of the points above and added comments to a couple, in particularly the first sentence issue. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good and interesting article. Some comments from my side.
Lead: the last sentence of the first para and the first sentence of the second paragraph. I don't really like the fact that the successive sentences start with "The match was".
"players, or players" a bit repetitive
Ref 4 displays "page not found"
Maybe link "ad hoc"
"other than England.[18][2]" best to reorder the refs
Wrexham (the town) is not linked at the first time in the body of the text.
"Although Kenrick ... Bell's Life." If I get this right, people in South Wales tend to be more Welsh-speaking (and less English-speaking) than persons from North Wales?
More to do with the fact that those publications were not widely circulated in Wales. I've expanded slightly to hopefully make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The towns of Oswestry and Shrewsbury could do with a wikilink.
John Hawley Edwards: he wasn't Welsh-born or -bred, and played for Shrewsbury- and London-based clubs during his career. Did he live in Wales for at least three years? From his article it's clear that he was connected to the establishment of the Football Association of Wales. This is not something that needs amending at all but I'm interested and maybe you could give me some more information.
That is a strange one as I can't find much record of him actually being resident in Wales. During this early period, the rules seemed loose to say the least, so it's likely he was given a free pass for being in with the FAW. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed all of the points babe and left comments on two more for clarification. Let me know what you think, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The first was a rebound". 'off a goalpost' may be helpful for the uninitiated.
"recognised as the joint oldest international football teams in history". "in history" is redundant.
I see what you mean because it's already referred to as the first international fixture, but I feel like emphasising that point is important to the reader. Kosack (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"By the time their fixture against Wales was organised in 1876, Scotland and England had played each other" As "their" refers to Scotland, can I suggest 'By the time their fixture against Wales was organised in 1876, Scotland had played England ..."
"had also been founded in 1873". Why use "also".
Why do you describe The Field as a newspaper, not a magazine? And would it be possible to give a brief in line description of what type of publication it was?
"that the international match should be association football and the field of players to be drawn from all of Wales". Suggestion: 'that the international match should be association football and the players be drawn from all of Wales'.
"Clay-Thomas' proposed rugby match between residents in London also went ahead on 15 March." Delete "also".
"The FAW sent out invitations to officials in England, Scotland and Ireland." Inviting them to what?
"The Football Association of Wales (FAW) was formed at the Wynnstay Arms in Wrexham" Is it known when?
"As such the Welsh side travelled to Scotland". I'm not sure about "As such"; how about 'Accordingly'.
"Although Kenrick corresponded with several Welsh clubs and the nation's universities to raise a team, he was criticised for allegedly overlooking players from the South having chosen to publish most of his notices in English sports journals such as The Field and Bell's Life which were not widely circulated in Wales." This is a long sentence with a lot packed in. Consider splitting it.
"RFC". From the MoS "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression".
"wrote a letter to the Western Mail in which". Optional: 'wrote a letter to the Western Mail newspaper in which'.
"he did welcome players of sufficient ability to try out for the team". Given the context I assume this is a reference to South Wales players?
"between players from the town's own football club and Druids" Shouldn't it be 'the Druids'?
As it's the name of the club, I don't believe so. In the same way for example we wouldn't write the Queen's Park Rangers or similar. Kosack (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You jump from the first to the csecond trial matches. What about the second?
Not much happened in the second really. I listed the first and last examples for timeframe and the third match had the issue of players pulling out. There wasn't anything particularly notable in the second. Kosack (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that it would flow better if you inserted something like 'A second trial match took place uneventfully.' and 'A fourth trial match took place on XX YYY.' and deleted "Four trial games were held in total", but I don't insist.
"but was disrupted when six of the eleven players who were scheduled to play failed to turn up." From which team?
"taking their place". "place" → 'places'.
"further dates were postponed". 1. Suggest "dates" → 'matches'. 2. "postponed": do you mean cancelled? What would be the point of "postponing" further trials until after the match being trialled for?
"one from English club, Oswestry". Either delete the comma or insert 'an' before "English".
Section titles: From the MoS "Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague)".
In "The Challenge" section there seems to be more emphasis on the preparation, selection and the players in the Welsh team than in the Scottish.
As I mentioned to TRM above, the Welsh team was starting from scratch here so had to found an association, hold trial matches and select a team from players who barely played organised football. By this point Scotland already had this in place and more, so apart from accepting the invitation and picking the squad (most of which remained from their previous match), they didn't have to do a lot really. Kosack (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. If you can source it, it may be worth adding a sentence to the article summarising what you have just told me above.
I've actually come across a source that states there were two "trial" matches in Scotland for uncapped players which I've added in. Other than that, the founding of the SFA and establishment of club football in Scotland is mentioned in the background section, so would probably be repeating itself somewhat. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"As Wales were an unknown team, the match drew a large crowd". That seems an odd reason for a large crowd. Is it solidly supported by the source?
I believe so, the newspaper in question has a whole paragraph on the interest that surrounded the Welsh selection. There is also a direct reference to the new team boosting the crowd, "the novelty of witnessing a Welsh team for the first time in Scottish soil, combined with beautiful weather, caused spectators to turn out in great numbers". Kosack (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Spectators were charged half-a-crown". Perhaps some idea of what this means in today's money in parentheses?
Nice addition. Can a suggest a footnote along the lines of 'A working man of the time typically earned around £X in a week.'?
Looking at the comparison, the cost doesn't seem particularly extortionate for the average worker at the time, so I'm unsure of how relevant it would be. Kosack (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page 106 of this suggests that a skilled worker might earn 30/- a week.
No images of the match programme around that could be used?
There is an image out there, but I'm unsure if its usage and it's of poor quality and is quite difficult to make out the actual writing as a result. Kosack (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Summary". Possibly 'Match summary'?
"Wales were forced to defend solidly". Do you mean 'continuously'?
Supporting. Good work. I have left a note above giving a source which indicates that half a crown was about a half day's income for a skilled tradesman, but will leave it to you as to whether you use it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The massive newspaper in the postmatch section crams the references together on my screen; using {{clear}} at the bottom of the notes section would do the trick, though it leaves a white space. Personally I prefer the white space to the crammed refs, but I don't really know...
Paul Mitchell should be formatted last name first, like your other refs
You include a publishing location for all of the books except Gibbons
Reliabillity
Not sure how ref 40 is reliable; seems to be a self-published source
historicalkits.co.uk is the web presence of Dave Moor who is an expert on football kits and their history. He has several published works on the subject, such as this and this. It has been used in a number of football FACs in the past and is generally considered a very reliable source. Kosack (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification here, I agree with your rationale and will keep this in mind for any future source reviews I conduct. Best - Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubts on the reliabillity of other sources; references are trusted news sources or statistical web information. Aza24 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think abbreviation templates should be used on the first instances of "GK", "FB", "HB", and "FW" to explain these terms for someone who knows nothing about football, such as myself. Heartfox (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an ancient ruler of the Phoenician city of Sidon. All what we know about Bodashtart is from ancient epigraphical remains that he left as dedication to ancient gods and goddesses … ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noted there is an harv error with Elayi, Josette (15 May 2018). The History of Phoenicia. ISD LLC. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-937040-82-6. , which points to nothing in the article, note the anchor: Elayi2018.
References are to be avoided in the lead, unless there are about a controversial statement likely to be challenged immediately by the reader (I think this is MOS).~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several references are not complete or incorrectly formatted. For example, the language (when not English) should be specified as per MOS, publisher and location should be provided in all cases.
Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid king isn't it? If so then this is far from clear in the article, both in the lead and main text. If not, then why does it says so in the navbox at the bottom of the article (Rulers in the Achaemenid Empire) ?
✓ done. Indeed he was, I added this information. His reign could have spanned under two Persian kings. It is verrry difficult to pinpoint the regnal years and Josette Elayi was the one to tackle this gap and provide an updated chronology based on numismatic evidence coupled with other archaeological and extant literary and epigraphic sources. The chronology is on pages 22 and 31. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, could you provide translations of the inscriptions in the pictures ? Are they those given in the text ?
✓ done. One of them is fully translated (KAI16 mentioning Yatonmilk). The colored image is of CIS I 4, the one I explained in the body of the article that it was problematic to decipher. I will add some translations in the notes later. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change all links to academia.edu which is a commercial website and links aren't persistent. Instead provide JSTOR numbers whenever possible, e.g. for Zamora's paper.
I doubt the article comprehensiveness. Just a cursory JSTOR reserach returns 42 articles on Bodashtart but in the article the references are nowhere near that number. Is there really no new info on him in these papers ?
✓ done. no new epigraphic finds, no new coins, no new interpretations till date. I ran another review of the sources. Most of the articles include a cursory mention of the king or cite sources that are already used here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same remarks from Google Books. There are a lot more reliable sources out there, why not use them rather than online websites ? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review @Iry-Hor:, I will fix the issues you pointed out. I am aware the article is short, I am sorry about that but this article summarizes everything we know about the subject, I will go over the JSTOR articles once more but nothing has been unearthed to add to the body of knowledge. Also please note that there are quite a lot of short FA-status articles; if this one does not cut it please let me know. 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias ZiadeThanks I think you covered it all convincingly. I will try to look around for more Bodarshtart and if I can't find anything not in the article, I will support, leaving the question of length in the hands of consensus. P.S: I don't receive notifications when you write { { Reply to| instead write { { u| and then the user wikiname (and without the space between the { and the u).Iry-Hor (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT : the lead needs a bit of improvement : as per MOS it must summarize all sections of the article. At the moment the main section of the article is represented by a single sentence of the lead about how he is known from epigraphic sources. Please expand a bit. In addition, the lead can include more useful info such as the identity of successor and predecessor etc. This will also contribute to making the article less short.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the lead is now much better and the article slightly longer in consequence. Furthermore I could not find anything significant that wasn't already in the article so I now believe this to be a thorough rendering of what is known about Bodashtart. I thus support this nomination !Iry-Hor (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that seems to be missing from such a short article is context. There may not be much to say about Bodashtart specifically, but the article should say more about the political context in which he lived, especially because there's no parent article about Phoenicia in the Persian period, just a section in a larger article (History of Phoenicia#Persian period (539–332 BC)). When the article was nominated, it didn't mention that Bodashtart was a vassal of the Achaemenid Empire. Now it does, but only in the lead, and no other details are given. According to the History of Phoenicia article, Sidon was one of four kingdoms into which the Phoenician portion of the empire was divided; is that accurate? Do you have any more information about it? I know information about that may be sparse, too, but I think you'll need to scrape together whatever information you can find. A. Parrot (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elie plus: It's a definite improvement. I think the paragraph about the interaction with Assyria goes into a bit too much detail, considering that those events were a century and a half before Bodashtart's own time, but given that these events were the prelude to the rise of Eshmunazar's dynasty, I think only slight trimming is needed there. A. Parrot (talk)
Other points:
The footnotes should probably go after the numbered citations rather than before them. (I also prefer to label those notes as "Note 1", etc., rather than with letters. It's a personal preference, but the eyes of experienced Wikipedia readers slide over normal citations because they're so ubiquitous, and I think it's a good idea to make footnotes as distinct from citations as possible.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the lead section needs some splitting of sentences and reworking of punctuation. I suggest putting it this way: The first of Bodashtart's inscriptions, honoring the goddess Astarte, was excavated in Sidon in 1858 and donated to the Louvre. The temple of Eshmun podium inscriptions were discovered between 1900 and 1922 and are classified into two groups. The inscriptions of the first group, known as KAI 15, commemorate building activities in the temple and attribute the works to Bodashtart.A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the lead is pretty basic information for a monarch, and the name of his predecessor and the length of his reign might instead go at the beginning. The article has already established that Yatonmilk was Bodashtart's proclaimed heir, but if you want to say Yatonmilk succeeded Bodashtart, or that scholars assume that he did so without actually being certain, please specify that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ I moved the succession part up; the bit of info about Yatonmilk actually ruling or not is cursory. I prefer to elaborate on that in the body and keep it off the lead. Please tell me if this is okay.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Bodashtart's reign originally dated to the fifth century? What is it about the evidence that caused scholars to reassess that dating? A. Parrot (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was, understandably, a lot of confusion in attempting to bracket the reign of Phoenician kings. Dunand for example wrongfully surmised that there were two Bodashtarts. It is only by taking into account the wealth of numismatic evidence left by sidoniam mints under the Achaeminids, historical accounts and archaeological finds that scholars were able to piece together an approximative timeline. Previous dates were based on the epigraphic sources solely, by comparing linguistic trends and the way the Phoenician script evolved (the style of the letters). Expanding on this will mislead the readers, I'd rather not include previous conjectures that are not as well researched as Elayi's. Elayi's work in 2006 is generally considered a keystone of the study of Phoenicia under the Persians.~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the book titles link to Worldcat, which isn't standard. ISBN links lead to websites with general identifying information about the book in question, including Worldcat, and linked book titles normally lead to sites where it's possible to view at least part of the book. If there's no place online to do that, it's fine to leave the title unlinked.
The Cambridge Ancient History link is dead, and I can't tell what volume it is—neither Volume 11 nor Volume 2 (if these are mistyped Roman numerals) seem to refer to this period in history.
✓ This one I had copied from another wikipedia page. I reviewed the source and the passage is actually is in another volume. I replaced the links and modified the book title. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to use a source as old as Yates?
✓ Not really but I was hoping to show that the findings have not changed since. I have two citations for verification, if this is not okay let me know. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant development in the study of Bodashtart seems to be Elayi's redating and revision of the interpretation of the evidence. Her 2006 paper seems to be treating these interpretations as novel, or at least not yet universally accepted. I'd like to see confirmation from more recent sources that her reinterpretation is now widely accepted, but the sources that might do that aren't accessible to me.
Elayi is a recognized pioneer; her work is cited multiple times in recent publications. Study of the Achaemenid period (550-330 scr) has undergone nothing short of a revival around the turn of the twenty-first century, among both European and American scholars. All aspects of the empire have received academic attention: archaeology, numismatics, iconography—to name just a few. Some foundational works on the period have paved the way for more focused studies (c.g., contributions by Amélie Kuhrt [eg, 2007] and Pierre Briant [eg., 2002]). Regional studies of the Achaemenid period have also emerged with greater frequency. For example, Elspeth Dusinberre (2003) explored the world of Achaemenid Sardis, and prolific contributions by Josette Elayi (e.g., Elayi 2018) and Alain Elayi focused on Phoenicia proper, while this author’s work on Achaemenid Phoenicia attempted to sketch the social history of the region.–V. Jigulov in López-Ruiz, Carolina; Doak, Brian R. (2019-07-29). The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-005838-8..
The same timeline is adopted here: Page 103 It was ruled by the so-called dynasty of Eshmunazor, now clearly dated to the second quarter till the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century BC (Elayi and Elayi 2004 593-611). Sidon was given Dor and Jaffa, as a reward for military deeds in the service of the Persians; this event seems to have inaugurated privileged relations with the Persian king,...� and on Page 108 {{Cite book|last=Steiner|first=Margreet L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5H4fAgAAQBAJ%7Ctitle=The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE|last2=Killebrew|first2=Ann E.|date=2014|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-921297-2|language=en}
Chronology section here: AMADASI GUZZO, Maria Giulia (2012). "SIDON ET SES SANCTUAIRES". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 106: 5–18. ISSN0373-6032.
The arguments for the early dating of the start of the Eshmunazar dynasty to the third quarter of the sixth century (Elayi 2004, 25–27), which has gained widespread acceptance (though see Jigoulov 2010, 50–56), rely largely on paleographical and archaeological evidence, including, critically, the presumption that new occupation at sites such as Dor, Jaffa, and parts of the Sharon Plain dates on archaeological grounds to circa 530 ... in Nitschke, Jessica L.; Martin, S. Rebecca; Shalev, Yiftah (2011-09-01). "BETWEEN CARMEL AND THE SEA: Tel Dor: The Late Periods". Near Eastern Archaeology. 74 (3): 132–154. doi:10.5615/neareastarch.74.3.0132. ISSN1094-2076. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 31 (as of the time I made this edit) has a problem. I don't see how page 12 is relevant to the sentence this citation supports, and page 5 doesn't support the last part of that sentence. Should this citation list another page instead of 12? A. Parrot (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the subject matter, so my review will be focussed on FA criteria a layman can assess (prose, formatting, MOS compliance). Here's some comments on the lead to start off: Esculenta (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there’s 4 citations after the first sentence of the lead: are these necessary? Are these facts so contentious that they are “likely to be challenged” (per MOS:LEADCITE)?
I don't think they all need to be added, but I get no sense from the article body which is the most commonly used transliteration, or if any were used more often historically and are not used anymore. Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”commemorate building activities in the temple and attribute the works to Bodashtart.” The word “works” evokes the the phrase “creative work” or “work of art”; is that what is meant here? Would the singular “work” be better?
”were found on podium restoration blocks” the phrase “restoration block” does not appear later in the article; is this the same thing as “ashlar stones”?
”Three of Bodashtart's Eshmun temple inscriptions are left in situ” Is there any meaning lost replacing the Latin with the more accessible “in place”? If so, consider linking the phrase.
”to supply the temple on his seventh regnal year.” Again, is anything lost by using the simpler “on the seventh year of his reign.”? If so, regnal year could be linked.
”the bank of the Bostrenos river” Capital R because it's part of a proper noun? Why does this link to Awali (river)? (Bostrenos is not mentioned in the target article)
My point about the link is that if a reader of this article wants to find out more information about the Bostrenos River, when they click on the target link, it takes then to Awali (river), where it doesn't even mention the word "Bostrenos", and now they're confused, thinking the wrong link was put in or something. Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”Bodashtart is believed to have reigned for at least seven years” Yet the infobox gives his reign as ten years.
clarification: Most of the inscriptions are not dated. There is an inscription from his first and seventh regnal years; the rest are thought to be from a later date. The two don't conflict and are quoted directly from sources. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ I could have removed Jal el Bajr, it is a seaside neighborhood of Tyre but I kept it to differenciate it from el Buss site. I explained that it's a neighborhood . ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”Phoenician inscriptions discovered by Dunand” why doesn’t this person get their first name included, like the others mentioned in the article?
”Elayi placed the reigns of the descendants of Eshmunazar I between the middle and the end of the sixth century; according to her work Bodashtart reigned from c.525 BC to c.515 BC.[16][17][18][19]” I don’t understand how the sourcing for this sentence can work. Two citations are for Elayi’s works in 2006 and 2018; the final citation (Lipiński 1995) was published before Elayi’s citations, so what part of the sentence is it supporting?
✓ It's a leftover from when I split passages and rearranged the article. The passage in question deals with the succession of Bodashtart, sorry about that. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”and its coastal cities including, Sidon.” remove comma
”immediately after their conquest of the Levant.” what is the Levant?
✓ I liked it: Historical area stretching from the coast of the eastern Mediterranean it includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and most of Turkey south-east of the middle Euphrates. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”began an extensive program of monumental constructions” phrasing is awkward… does “monumental constructions” mean “construction of monuments”?
in the section “Epigraphic sources” I noticed a tendency to join phrase together with semicolons, sometimes resulting in long, hard-to-digest sentences. Please consider shortening these for better flow.
Note 2: Some French text is given, which I presume are the words of Amadasi Guzzo (2012), then an English translation of this. Is information supplied to support this “others posit that the text records the dedication of the Sharon plain to the temple of said goddess.” I’m wondering why the original text and translation are supplied in the first place. I frequently write articles that use foreign-language sources, and it has not occurred to me to include the source as well as the original text and a translation in a note.
Comment I believe that it's very important to include the translations, these are not accessible to the general public and can be very informative. I would have added all the original texts in their original Phoenician script, a Latinized transliteration, And a translation in english in a table format but that would encumber the article. If we can keep this I'd really appreciate it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
”King of Sidon built this SRN of the land” what is SRN?
Comment Like many ancient terms the meaning of this word is still obscure until more epigraphic sources emerge. There are a number of ways to read this term because the Phoenicians did not write vowels (it could be read as Sarn / Saron/ Saran / Sarin / Soron / Soran etc.) ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3: “mlk bdʿštrt mlk ṣdnm bn bn mlk” what language is this? Whatever language this is has a translation into French in the note … but no English translation. I don’t understand the point.
Comment it is the Latinized transliteration of the original text. My target population is not just regular readers. Plenty of users can read ancient Phoenician and assimilate the meaning based on Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac. I believe having these, can add to the general knowledge especially when they are sourced from leading scholars like Milik. The English translation is in the article body. Other wikipedia articles containing texts translated for extinct languages include the text in its original form, a transliteration and a translation. I could have added all of these in a table but it would have been really redundant and unsightly especially that the article is about the king and not his inscriptions. Despite this, the original text and Milik's original language translation provide much needed info and add to what little we know about the king and his reign. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
citation formatting comments:
several page ranges that should use “pp.” are instead using “p.”
there’s no need to add “– via JSTOR” after every JSTOR identifier (same with “via Archaeology & History in Lebanon”, “via Open edition journals”, “via Persee”)
My commentary is completed; I'm really not confident enough about topic material to be able to offer my support on anything but prose, but I hope that the suggestions were useful nonetheless. Esculenta (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"on the basis of recent numismatic, historical and archaeological evidence." What is meant by "recent"? It's better to be specific; this article will possibly exist for a long time, and "recent" will mean little.
"included recently excavated inscribed Tyrian seals and stamps,[6][7][8][9] newly discovered Phoenician inscriptions in Sidon" Likewise, recently and newly has little meaning.
I just noticed Sennacherib, whose FAC I just reviewed, is part of this article. I wonder if the nominator, Ichthyovenator, has noticed this coincidence.
There is a disconnect between the Chronology and Epigraphic sources sections, since Bodashtart isn't mentioned in the middle Historical context section. Is there a way to mention him there, like state when the first records about him are from or something?
Any info on the circumstances of him getting the throne? For example, you don't mention his predecessor until the last section, while it would make sense to say something like "he inherited the throne from his cousin, Eshmunazar II" or similar, already in an earlier section for context.
"Bodashtart carried out an extensive expansion and restoration project of the Temple of Eshmun and left some 30 dedicatory inscriptions at the temple site" During his reign? And when?
comment: when is a tough question. Only two inscriptions are dated on his first and seventh year of his reign. The dedicatory inscriptions of the temple are not dated and belong to two distinct periods. All the inscriptions date from his reign since he is mentioned as living so I will omit adding this. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and are classified into two groups:" I think this terminology could also be used in the article body, that is, introducing the text about the inscriptions by defining them as two groups.
"The last discovered inscription found on the bank of the Bostrenos River". Suggest 'The most recently discovered inscription as of 2020 was found on the bank of the Bostrenos River' or similar.
"the dates of the inscriptions of this dynasty were raised on the basis of". I think that 'established', or 'estimated' may work better than "raised" here.
"as Phoenicia's chief city, and the Phoenician kings began an extensive program of mass-scale construction projects". Just checking that you do mean all of the Phoenician kings, as the examples you then give are only from Sidon.
I meant into English. You say "the Polish biblical scholar Milik ... ; he interpreted the inscription thus:", but he didn't; and we aren't told who did.
You're right. It's a verbatim translation that's very faithful to Milik's original. I sourced it from an AUB doctorate thesis (not accessible online). I removed this one and replaced it with Torrey's and added referral tags for other translations in the notes section. Please note that both Milik and Torrey don't get it completely right. The best possible translation is a synthesis of both because Milik made a mistake when he misread 'sr qds' as 'sd qds' which impacted his last two words (what should have been read as sacred/holy prince/lord became holy territory). _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The king Bodashtart and his legitimate heir Yatonmilk, king of the Sidonians, grandson of king Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians, built this temple to his god Eshmun, the Sacred Prince". Where does this translation, into English, come from?
✓ Original in French by Dussaud, added an english source.
You have a formatting issue with Thomas/cite 42. I don't have access to page 143 of Thomas to verify the reference. Would it be possible for you to scan or photograph that page and email it to me? Thanks.
There are, as I suspected, issues with this. You have not faithfully copied the text from the source into the article. See MOS:SIC "the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text". Could you adjust the text so that it matches the source.
You have done a fine job here, and I am happy if I have helped to add a little FAC polish. And thanks for being so positive throughout - too many nominators get perturbed when a reviewer starts poking at their lovingly crafted articles. Supporting. Re sharp eyes, other reviewers do the same for my noms, where I can let a distressing amount of slop get past. I may give you a shout one day and ask you to return the favour by pointing out all of the errors in one of my articles. Good luck with this, but I am sure that it will be fine. Gog the Mild (talk)
This article is about a prominent Finnish lichenologist, arguably one of the most important historical figures in this somewhat esoteric field. I've been working on it for about half a year, when I started it from a redlink. In that time, I've obtained and read all of the important sources about this man, save for two short Finnish-language articles I could not obtain, which have been listed in "Further reading". The article has been through a GA review, and several temporally spaced rounds of copyediting by myself and offline colleagues. I've used another recently promoted, somewhat related FA biography as a template to help guide me during the construction of this article. Having read the WP:MoS, I think it adheres quite closely to the recommended styling (although I'm happy to be further educated on things I've missed or misinterpreted). Thanks for reading. Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't feel confident enough to be a reviewer as I know nothing about this field, but I read this with interest after spotting it in the FAC list! I'm Finnish and speak Finnish as my first language, and therefore thought that I could offer my help with anything related to Finnish history, geography, spelling etc. in the article. There were a couple of things that I spotted:
"Edvard was one of several children of parents Carl Johan Lang and Adolfina Polén, both of whom were bailiffs." – His father was, but his mother wasn't. I doublechecked what the source said, as it sounded strange that a woman could have a held such a position in the 19th century.
"In the early 1860s, Carl Johan was transferred to the municipality of Hollola near Lake Vesijärvi in southern Finland, and the family settled into a farm near Laitila." Hollola and Laitila are quite far from each other, therefore it seems that there is a typo here or some sort of a misunderstanding. 'Laitila' is a fairly common name, so it's possible that a part of Hollola was called that? In any case, I would double-check the sources.
"the plant and cryptogam floras of Tavastehus"— Tavastehus is the Swedish name for Hämeenlinna. I would double-check which is the more commonly used name in English, but at least English WP's article uses Hämeenlinna rather than Tavastehus.
Happy I could be of assistance! One more thing I was wondering: what is the significance of Lake Vesijärvi to Vainio's life and career? Most Finnish municipalities are in the vicinity of at least one lake, therefore I think it needs to be clarified why this lake in particular is mentioned. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Several of the sources I used mention this lake, so I thought I should also. To add more relevance to this article, I added mention of the fact that Norlinn and young Vainio went on their botanical excursions in the area surrounding the lake. Esculenta (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vainio_1924.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Ditto File:Matkustus_Brasiliassa._Kuvaus_luonnostaja_kansoista_Brasiliassa_1888_cover.jpg, File:Evard_August_Vainio.jpg
Ok, I figured out that my original Finland-PD tag was incorrect (this is not a "work of art") and I've switched to the correct PD-Finland50 tag. So it became PD in 1984, and makes the URAA deadline (I think). Esculenta (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:HU-main-building-1870.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
Added PD-1996. I added the publication date of the original source (Jan 1 1989), to show it meets the second requirement of this tag (published before 1 March 1989). Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Johannes_Müller_Argoviensis.png: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
File:William_Nylander-2.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Thore_Fries_x_Emil_Österman.jpg
For the first, author is unknown, so I replaced PD-old with both PD-Finland50 and PD-US-expired. Couldn't find the death date for the second, so I swapped out this image for one in which the photographer's death year is known (1950); I guess the "life plus 70 years or fewer" requirement of the PD tag is met as of today. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PD-US-expired tag. Couldn't find publication details, but the photo is from 1922 (depicting the official opening of the university) so it clearly meets the creation + 50 years part of PD-Finland50. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poking around, I found this image in the University of Turku archives, but their licensing isn't Wikipedia friendly. So I swapped for a similar image that's CC-BY-4.0. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copyediting as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
Your copyedits are great! You appear to have a much better grasp than me at trimming unnecessary verbiage. I will study the diffs and try to better apply this technique to my own writing. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which became a heavy burden for him in his academic circles: it only becomes clear what this refers to once this part of his career is covered in the body of the article. Suggest "which led to his ostracism by the Finnish scientific community".
from all continents, including the Arctic and Antarctica: you say this both in the lead and the body. I know what you mean, but the Arctic isn't a continent and I think it would be best to find another way to phrase this.
Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique (née Pérottin): annoyingly, I don't think there's a standard way to present the names of women in sentences about their marriage, but I think this is not ideal -- I assumed "Scolastique" was her surname and it took me a second to realize I was wrong. I would just make this "Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique Pérottin".
I was so confused by the Lang/Wainio/Vainio changes that I quit reading the article linearly and searched it for the explanation. I think you should refer to him as "Lang" until he changes his name, or else the first time you use "Vainio" in the body explain -- even if only in a footnote -- the chronology of the name changes. And since he was Wainio for a long time we should make that clear before using "Vainio", too.
I've placed a footnote after the first usage of Vainio in the article text, and changed the instances of Vainio to Lang in the early life section. I contemplated similarly changing the Vainio's to Wainio's but figured it might be too confusing to the reader (indeed, it was confusing to me as I was trying to change them and remember what his name was at the time). So I haven't used the Wainio spelling in the article text, other than to explain the orthographical changes. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this some more, and I have a further suggestion, though I don't think there's an ideal way to handle this so I'm open to other ideas. The two goals are that the lead has to make it clear he held all three names, and the reader should not be confused as they read through. I think this might work:
Add note 2, about his name, to the lead sentence -- I would suggest putting it before or after the current footnote 2. That allows the reader to see a more detailed explanation immediately if they wish, without interrupting the lead.
Expand note 2 to explain the logic of the usage in the article -- something like "His family name was originally Lang; in 1877 he adopted the Finnish name Wainio, first written with a “w”, which was a common practice at that time in the Finnish language. In 1919, he adopted the modern spelling Vainio. In this article he is referred to as Vainio for events after 1877, as this is the name by which he is known within lichenology."
Currently note 2 follows the first use of his name. I think we have to have something in the text itself. How about "During his time as a graduate student, Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname,[note 2] published two works on the cryptogams of Finland"?
Also, a pedantic note: you have né Lang until 1877 in the lead, but he was né Lang after 1877, technically. How about "Edvard August Vainio (né Lang; Wainio from 1877 to 1919; ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MoS requires either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes in running prose; you have multiple examples of both -- please make them all one or all the other.
In one of Nylander's publications,[30] eleven new species were described based on the collections of "E. Lang". Since something similar happened with Nylander's 1870 publication that credited Lang, I would make it clear that this was the second time Nylander had done this; I had to go back to the "Early life" section to be sure this wasn't a duplicated mention of the first instance.
In these publications, Vainio determined the lichen material he collected from the Vyborg region: I'm not familiar with this use of "determined"; is it standard in the field to mean identification, or analysis? If so I'd suggest glossing it or substituting less specialized language.
With the help of grants from the university, Vainio made several scientific expeditions abroad around this time. Since this is a new section, there's not a good referent for "around this time". Perhaps "early in his career"?
What do you mean by "collecting excursion"? You use the phrase twice in the "Work abroad" section. I would have thought this meant a trip to a location to collect specimens, but it appears from the article that Vainio and Gounelle were staying at the Santuário do Caraça and did not go anywhere else. Perhaps something like "The French entomologist Pierre-Émile Gounelle stayed at the monastery while Vainio was there, and some of their collecting work was done together"?
I'm using it the sense of "a short trip to collect specimens", but have used your wording above in the second instance in the "Work abroad" section. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and suffered a sandfly infestation: I don't think "infestation" is the best word. Perhaps make it "He ended up spending a night in a wet, sandfly-infested cave without food, water, or a way to make fire." Then make it "sandfly larvae" in the sentence about his recovery.
he later became known infamously for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts: suggest either "he later became infamous for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or, perhaps better, "he later became known for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or "known for having held"; "infamous" is a bit strong for encyclopedic tone.
Note: you will still need a source review for reliability and formatting
Haikurainen: "In these works—considered the earliest publications on phytogeography in the Finnish language..." not supported by Haikurainen source, which I read as saying that Norrlin was first, unless I'm missing something?
The first citation given at the end of the sentence (Magnusson 1934, p. 6) covers this; referring to two Vainio publications, “Both these papers hold a prominent position in the history of Finnish botany, being the first publications on plant geography in the Finnish language, and as such the fundament of the Finnish terminology on plant geography.” The Haikurainen citation is used to source the fact that several of the terms he coined are now standard Finnish phytogeographical terms. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Magnusson 1930
p. 5: Close paraphrasing: "public school pupil E. Lang" is lifted from the source. It's sufficient to say "credited Lang" here.
I rephrased this four-word sequence instead of trimming, as I think it’s interesting that a school student was credited on an academic paper. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pp. 5–6 I don't see where the name of the university is mentioned
"he started lecturing on botany" I don't see where on the cited page the claim is supported
Good catch, I had the wrong page. Page 8 says “He became lecturer (docent) on botany in 1880 …”
Supported
p. 7: No issues
p. 8: No issues
Väre 2017: no issues
Michell: Close paraphrasing, "knew that the ideal arrangement would have lichen genera positioned next to their nearest non-lichenized relatives, but all he could realistically do was assign lichens and 'ascomycetes to one natural group...," (source) "understood that the ideal classification scheme would have positioned lichen genera close to their nearest non-lichenized relatives, all he could realistically do with the information he had available was assign lichens and ascomycetes to one group" (article) You need to rewrite in your own words. swapped for synonyms.
rewritten as follows: “Although the ideal classification scheme would place lichen genera near their closest non-lichenized fungal relatives, with the limited information Vainio had available the solution he devised was to designate lichens and ascomycetes to one group and place the lichens in separate classes, the Discolichenes and Pyrenolichenes.”
Linkola 1934
p. 3: I changed the page number so all the content would be verified
p. 5: I changed the page number to verify the age difference, which I changed to 11 years to match the source. " Norlinn would marry Lang's sister in 1873." is not supported, it just says that he became his brother-in-law.
Does this phrase on page 5 not support it? "He was introduced to this branch of science by Norrlin, since 1873 his brother-in-law." Esculenta (talk)
There are multiple ways to become a brother-in-law since it can mean either "the husband of your sister or brother, or the brother of your husband or wife, or the man who is married to the sister or brother of your wife or husband"[23] Otherwise I'm satisfied with the fixes here. (t · c) buidhe04:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you should add an identifier such as doi, issn, isbn or oclc to each print resource
I’ve gone through the list and added issns or oclcs to the remaining sources that were not otherwise linked or lacked identifiers; for the one remaining print resource in "Further reading" I could not find any identifiers. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more consistent about how you list works. For example, putting all books and journal articles in the bibliography would be more consistent. For publications like Jørgensen, Per M. (2017) or Kaila, Annu; Vasander, Harri (2010) it would be more verifiable to put in the bibliography and cite the exact page number that supports the claim made.
For these two you listed, I did that. For the rest, either the page ranges are small enough the reader can verify quickly on their own with document in hand, or specific page numbers I don't think are required. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citing entire books, like you do for Alava, R. (1988), Alava, R. (2008), isn't ideal for verifiability reasons. In these cases, it's preferable to cite the exact page (i.e. in the introduction) where the author says what the book covers.
Would appreciate further guidance on this. For these two books (which I don't actually have), I've found book reviews that I could use instead to source the sentences, but I'd still like to give the bibliographic information about these books somewhere in the article. Should I double up citations? List the two books in a footnote? Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Came up with another solution: I cited book reviews to source the sentences about the books, and put the books into "Further reading". Esculenta (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
Kudos for following MOS:CHANGEDNAME. But this makes it hard to follow the first part of the post-lead section. I would write "Edvard August Vainio was born Edvard Lang..." to avoid the reader's confusion.
You removed part of an explanatory note in the lead sentence that I thought would help prepare the reader for the triple name change to follow. Perhaps it was not as clear as I believed? Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname" Awkwardly phrased I would just state in text that he changed his name in 1877.
Buidhe, just sticking my nose in to make sure you noticed that he actually changed his name twice, which makes the wording particularly difficult to get right. I think we should avoid implying that his name became Vainio in 1877, but make it clear it was no longer Lang. Note 1 was intended to help the reader follow this, but perhaps that needs to be in the text; I suggested a note to avoid clogging up the first sentence of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"was not impressed with Vainio's choice of language for his publications" -> "disliked that Vainio chose to write in Finnish"?
"It is sad for the science as also for Mr Candidate Lang..." is this blockquote necessary? It seems to say more about Nylander than Vainio. I would just remove it.
I'd like to keep it, as it helps explain the growth of Nylander's dislike towards Vainio. It does say a lot about Nylander, which is kind of the point. He had a tendency to become priggish, haughty, and dismissive toward those who did not hold the same scientific views as him. Before it was there, the GA reviewer thought the article was too vague about what Nylander's problem was, and I thought this quote illustrated his attitude quite well. Esculenta (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At other FACs, I have seen people object to the in-line interwiki links (e.g., "Johan Petter Norrlin [fi]"). I'm inclined to agree -- this isn't something that exists outside of Wikipedia (you won't find it in OUP's manual of style...) and I'm not sure it's really supported in the MOS. I worry it's a symtom of people's aversion to redlinks, but I'm of the opinion (an opinion reflected in longstanding guidelines!) that we should welcome redlinks!
Wikipedia:MOSSIS says "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible.", and WP:ILL doesn't discourage their use, so I'm not seeing where its use is discouraged. I did check to make sure that the links were useful; eg. note I didn't interwiki link the redlinked species to the more or less useless articles on Cebuano Wikipedia! I should note that I have partly-finished drafts for about half the remaining redlinks in the article, and it's a medium-term goal to eliminate redlinks entirely from this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. MOSSIS also says "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, or where appropriate in citations. Two exceptions are links to Wiktionary and Wikisource that may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed)." If that guideline covers links to other-language Wikipedias, it would be very odd not to mention these kinds of links as an exception if they were encouraged. WP:ILL, meanwhile, is not a policy or a guideline; it's a how-to. I am happy to agree with you that no guideline explicitly says that these links shouldn't be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, it feels a bit like we jump from a kid with an older friend to an associate professor. Would it perhaps be worth half a sentence on his university studies?
"of bailiff Carl Johan Lang" If this is in British English, that should be the bailiff. (See false title.) Also "to father Carl Johan's work" -- this one's a nice example of the problem, as he's no priest! And "of museum director Ladislau de Souza Mello Netto", "German botanist Fritz Mattick", "Danish naturalist Peter Wilhelm Lund", "Danish botanists Peter Clausen and his assistant Eugenius Warming", "explorers and botanists Friedrich Welwitsch and Hans Schinz", "Hungarian botanist Hugó Lojka", "Portuguese botanist and army doctor Américo Pires de Lima", "German lichenologist Ferdinand Christian Gustav Arnold", " Norwegian botanist Per Magnus Jørgensen "
I did some research on this topic after commenting on another FAC; I came to the conclusion that the use or non-use of the definite article was more and more becoming a matter of stylistic preference, even in British English (as our own article on the subject seems to suggest). I think the father example is covered by the fact that it's not capitalized (and thus not an honorific). Is there a relevant MOS-link that discusses this? Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"considered the earliest publications on phytogeography in the Finnish language" -- I wonder if this belongs in the lead, and also wonder whether describing him simply as a "lichenologist" in the opening sentence is underselling his non-lichenological contributions!
I've now mentioned this in the lead. Wouldn't feel comfortable calling him anything but a lichenologist, considering that's what all the sources call him, and his phytogeographical and botanical work, although important, was such a small part of the scientific output. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" the reindeer lichen and British soldiers lichen species" ELsewhere, you provide specific names when mentioning species
I added these common names in here at the suggestion of the GA reviewer, with the rationale that the layman reader might recognize some familiar names to associate with the genus. Since Vainio didn't do anything specific with these species, I didn't think it necessary to also include the Latin name. Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"species definitions in Cladonia" Odd phrase. "definitions of Cladonia species", perhaps?\
"Even during his docentship, Vainio continued to work additional modest jobs: teaching botany at the Leppäsuo [fi] horticultural school (1878–1882); natural sciences at the Swedish Private Lyceum (1879–1882); the Swedish Real Lyceum (1881–1884); the Finnish Primary School (1882–1884); the Finnish Girls' School (1882–1884), and the Finnish Graduate School (1882–1884)." I fear this sentence needs reworking. If I understand you correctly, you're saying he taught botany at one school, and natral sciences at several others. If so, how about: "Even during his docentship, Vainio continued to work additional modest jobs. He taught botany at the Leppäsuo [fi] horticultural school (1878–1882), and taught natural sciences variously at the Swedish Private Lyceum (1879–1882); the Swedish Real Lyceum (1881–1884); the Finnish Primary School (1882–1884); the Finnish Girls' School (1882–1884); and the Finnish Graduate School (1882–1884).
I'm not sure about "Later life"; "Personal life" would be usual, or "Personal life and character" might capture the contents better. It's particularly strange to read about his death (what was the cause, incidentally?) and then soon after jump into a discussion of his "later life" that begins with his marriage decades earlier.
The section rename is a good idea, and avoids me having to arrange all the personal bits chronologically throughout the article; done. The cause of death is already given in the final paragraph of that section. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you've not provided links for some of the species named after him?
Yes: the unlinked ones are those for which an article should not be written, as they appear to be obsolete "one-offs" that have not been mentioned in the literature since their original publications; I've started articles for all the others (or plan to). Esculenta (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a stellar article. Esculenta and I have some stylistic disagreements, as noted above. If other reviewers raise these concerns, perhaps they can be revisited. But they shouldn't stop me from offering my support. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"he discovered 324 species in the vicinity of Vyborg" did he discover, in the sense of being the first scientist to describe them as species? or did he catalog species known to science? The wording is ambiguous.
link "thesis"; likely doctoral, but there are other forms...
I've reworded to remove the first instance of the unlinked "thesis"; now "dissertation" is linked (which redirects to thesis), and I use thesis as as a synonym later. Let me know if you think this might cause confusion. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the Russian border in "Education" is confusing given that we learned that the region was part of the Russian Empire earlier; could you be more specific? I assume you mean the border between the Duchy and Russia proper, but it isn't obvious.
You are correct; clarified in text. Esculenta (talk)
"phylogeny" would be helpful to gloss; also Kaarlo Linkola, Morphology (in the body); docent, which has differing meanings by location and time;
Phylogeny is now glossed; Kaarlo Linkola and docent are already linked on 1st occurrence (although I'm not opposed to repeating links in general). Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would duplicate the citation you use for notes in the main text.
I'm not quite sure what you mean ... you would prefer it read "..who had by now given up his original surname,[note 1][2][3]", where [2] and [3] are the same citations given in the note? Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johan Reinhold Sahlberg (docent in entomology) and Professor Sextus Otto Lindberg; I would use parentheses for the titles of both these men, or commas; "Professor" in particular seems to violate MOS:CREDENTIAL
"Vainio's research was focused on lichens, and he collected them from all over Finland and abroad" This sentence strikes me as redundant to content before and after.
"16 are still considered valid species" this is from a 1998 source; taxonomy has been frequently revised following genetic analyses; is a recent source available? If not, at the very least this needs to mention the date.
"about half were described as new to science" this is odd wording; "half were new to science"? this is used elsewhere, too.
"New to science" is a standard term of art in biological sciences where new species are frequently described, and I think it's fairly intuitive what it means. That said, I left one instance and reworded the other occurrences. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't clear; "new to science" is very standard; I'm suggesting saying "half were new to science" rather than "half were described as new to science". It's the "described as" that strikes me as unnecessary. Vanamonde (Talk)23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"only about 30 lichen species were known in the country" I would suggest saying "only 30 species had been described"; it's fairly certain the lack from from a lack of study, rather than a lack of understanding...
The text about Vainio publishing in Finnish is somewhat redundant to the above; is there any way of condensing it?
Sorry, I'm not sure what specific parts you think are redundant; is it that he published both the first Finnish-language phytogeography paper as well as the first Finnish-language natural sciences dissertation? Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"merging the classification of non-lichenized fungi and lichenized fungi" I don't think this is comprehensible to the general reader, or even to many biologists. Is it crucial to the article? If so, I think we need more explanation; and if it's lengthy, perhaps in a footnote.
It is important, but it is discussed in more detail in the third paragraph of "Legacy", so I just trimmed the sentence from that spot. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"must have been a further blow to him personally" "must have been" is an odd turn of phrase for an encyclopedia article. Does the source say it was? If so, we can just say so outright, or attribute it.
It does say that (in Finnish), so I've attributed the statement more explicitly to the author. Esculenta (talk)
" the Russian Empire pursued the policy of Russification" "Russification" really needs further explanation, and possibly a link too.
Added a link to Russification and glossed it; there's a later link to the more directly relevant Russification of Finland later on. Esculenta (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Vainio suffered deeply from the consequences caused by this action" If this means Vainio felt unhappy, then I'd suggest rewording; also it isn't clear what "this action" is.
"Vainio was forced to suspend his teaching position" I don't quite understand what this means; usually, that would be an employer's decision, not his?
Poor word choice on my part. I swapped "forced to" with "obliged" (per original source), and added a bit of explanation about why he did this. Esculenta (talk)
", who applied every means of pressure to suppress Finnish nationalism" this feels a little coatrack-y in the personal life section; if it is included, it ought to be where Russification is mentioned above, and I'd suggest rewording "every means".
"These outdated ideas" strikes me as over-use of Wikipedia's voice. That the ideas were outmoded is made clear by the fact that they were abandoned later; I would skip the adjective entirely.
" and have been sunk into synonymy with other genera" this is somewhat jargon-filled; I also wonder if it's necessary, as "obsolete" largely covers this.
That's everything from me. I am not qualified to judge the comprehensiveness here, but the article is remarkably detailed, and an easy read; nice work. I expect to support once my comments are addressed. Vanamonde (Talk)02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments, they have helped to improve the article. I've replied to all points above; two need further clarification. Esculenta (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point, but in the "selected publications" you use "——————————" for repeated authors, this is not done here though—I would think sticking to one way or the other is ideal
In the first instance, I use the "author-mask" parameter to avoid having to list Vainio's name a dozen times in a row; in the "Cited literature" section, there is only one instance of a repeat author, so I don't think it's necessary to hide the single repeat of Linkola. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really confused about the formatting of ref 133, what is Pp513 and whats all of the "Turku: University of Turku. 1988. Pp513, 1 map"; why is the author not formatting like the rest?
128 is confusing me in the same way
These are the actual titles of the sources, according to the doi –> citation tool I use, but I have trimmed the titles of unnecessary details (hope that's ok). Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
double listing of publisher in 129? "Publications from the Herbarium, University of Turku. 9. Turku: University of Turku"?
The title of the series is actually "Publications from the Herbarium, University of Turku", so when both series title and publisher are given in the citation, it appears as if duplicated. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"(né Lang; Wainio from 1877 until 1919;[note 1] 5 August 1853 – 14 May 1929)". I found this confusing as the first dates would normally be birth and death. As you discuss him under different names below, I suggest leaving it out and explaining the name changes as the second sentence of the article.
I checked MOS:CHANGEDNAME for more guidance on this; subsequently I've simplified the parenthetical part of the opening sentence in the lead as you suggested; interested readers can hover or click the note for more details. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the eleven-years-older university student Johan Petter Norrlin" This seems an odd wording. I would prefer "university student Johan Petter Norrlin, who was eleven years older"
"After graduating from the University of Helsinki in 1880, Vainio became an associate professor of botany at this institution, a position he held until 1906" In the main text, you say that he was refused an associate professorship and I cannot see any mention of the year 1906.
"Nylander, however, disliked Vainio's choice of language for his publications" This is ambiguous. I would say "choice of Finnish as the language of his publications"
"qualified him as a docent and gave him teaching rights at the University of Helsinki" What does this mean? The article on docent says it was between associate professor and professor, but you say below he was turned down as associate professor. Does "qualified him" mean he became a docent or was eligible to apply for a vacancy? Ditto with teaching rights.
"Vainio's research contradicted some of Nylander's previous work by presenting shortcomings in way he defined species in Cladonia" "presenting shortcomings" is an odd expression. Maybe "Vainio argued that Nylander had made errors in his definition of species in Cladonia"
"lake Satyga" I think you need to check this name. I have tried googling it and this article is the only hit!
You would get a few more hits if you used the Cyrillic spelling; but regardless, it's in a more-or-less uninhabited area of Khanty-Mansiysk, so is not unusual to be missing from the English literature (I confirmed the transliterated spelling in the source). Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonetheless, by the end of his time in Caraça, he had collected a large volume of specimens." I do not think you need "Nonetheless" here. From all you say, it would be remarkable if he had been put off by his adventure!
"In 1887, Vainio published the first of his three-volume monograph on Cladonia" What language was this in? How was he able to build a reputation if he was writing in a language very few lichenologists knew? It would be helpful to say what language each publication was in. Etude sur la classification naturelle et la morphologie des lichens du Brésil is obviously in French but you do not mention him writing in that language.
"he never obtained a permanent university position in this university". "permanent university position" is linked to professor. Why not say "professor"? Was it the only permanent position in the university?
"Subsequently, he was forced to earn his living by working for the Russian censorship authority" "forced" seems too strong, especially as he was a Finnish nationalist.
"they considered lichens a plant group" I may have missed you saying that this is now discredited, but if I have not I think you should spell it out.
Now reads "Since they still subscribed to the belief that lichens were a plant group—rather than the fungus/alga symbiosis they are now known to be—they thought ..." Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The university was intended to be administrated entirely in the Finnish language" I am not clear what you mean by "administrated". Was the administration but not the teaching to be wholly in Finnish? If both, I suggest "Teaching and administration were to be wholly in Finnish"
"Vainio was generally healthy for most of his life, but suffered from severe nephralgia (pain in the kidney)" This seems a contradiction - he was hardly healthy if he suffered severe kidney pain.
"his extensive collecting in Caraça, it has since become an international hub for lichenology and a destination for pilgrimages by lichenologists" presumably Turku not Caraça an international hub but needs clarifying.
exsiccata. This is a rare word. It is not in OED or Merriam Webster but Wiktionary has it as a dried specimen. It needs explanation.
I do have the plural form "exsiccatae" already glossed above in the "Career" section; should I perhaps wiktionary-link the second occurrence in the quote? Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first rate article, but I have some general queries. 1. I am not clear how much of his work was in Finnish, and if much of it was then how he could have acquired an international reputation when few readers knew Finnish. 2. It seems very surprising that such a strong nationalist should have worked for Russian censorship and have had such limited involvement in political activities. On the latter point you can of course only go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 1. His early works in Finnish were his phytogeographical papers (1st in that language about the subject of phytogeography), and then his 1880 dissertation (the 1st natural science dissertation in that language). These works were very early in his career (he was still a student); these did not give him an international reputation, but a local/national reputation as a diligent scholar willing to push academic norms by publishing in a "local" language. It was his later works (published in Latin, like most other similar academic work at the time) that gained him international repute.
You have "Vainio's reputation as a prominent lichenologist was first established by his floristic treatment of the lichens collected during these trips (the Adjumenta, published in 1881 and 1883, in Latin)—even more so than his Finnish-language dissertation." This seems to me ungrammatical and unclear. How about "Finnish speaking experts had admired Vainio's dissertation, but his international reputation as a major lichenologist was first established by his floristic treatment of the lichens collected during these trips in the Adjumenta, published in Latin in 1881 and 1883." (But why floristic when they are not plants?) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better than my clunky wording – thanks! "Floristic" because the fungal equivalents have not gained acceptance, although there have been recent initiatives to change this (and the sources use this term). Esculenta (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 2. The article does mention that he was involved with pro-Finnish student activism in the 1870s, but it seems he was simply much more devoted to his academic work later in life. Esculenta (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the most famous snooker match of all time. Picture it, it's 1985, Steve Davis has won three world championships and has pretty much won everything else. He's in the final of the 1985 World Snooker Championship, and plays Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor. Should be a good match? Davis wins the first of four sessions without losing a single frame, and then leads 8-0. It's the first to 18. He misses a green ball, and Taylor goes on a rampage, gets the score back to 13-11 after the third session, but then trails 17-15. Game over? No. Taylor wins the next two and it's a deciding frame. There are 46 legal pots on the table, but it comes down to the very last one. It's all on the final black ball. Both men have a go, and Davis is left with an easy-ish pot. The whole country groans. He misses, and Taylor pots to win his only world championship. 18.5 million people look at their watches, it's 1a.m and you've got work in the morning.
The main article, the 1985 World Snooker Championship passed through to FA last year. This is the only individual snooker match that we have an article on, although I'd say there's probably three or four more that are notable. This one is in a league of it's own, due to holding the record audience past midnight in the UK, and of any show on BBC Two. The match is often credited with the snooker boom of the 1980s and early 1990s. I hope you enjoy the read, and let me know if there is anything I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who runs the culture website? Bear with me as I'm editing from a wifi hotspot and sometimes my reception is not the best, so deep research on websites is ... difficult ... (nothing like having a website take a minute or two to load... I thought I left that behind with dialup modems!) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure, so I've removed both entries from the article. I've replaced the quote with the video of the match, published by the body, which should be as good as anything Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I know about cue sports is ... my first husband hustled pool when he was young. And watching him play was boring as hell. Heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the biggest fan of hustling, it's very dishonest. Much prefer the competitive versions of snooker and pool. I'm assuming this was eight-ball? Snooker is the big brother to some of these games, more balls, bigger tables and smaller pockets! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles of articles should not be in all capitals.
Background: "The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." How about a reword to show it is the official world championship of professional snooker? (The IBSF World Snooker Championship is also official.)
Lead: "Taylor trailed until he tied the match at 17–17." - they were tied earlier too (at 11-11 and 15-15, I think). Maybe reword, e.g. to say that Taylor was never ahead until winning the final frame?
Lead: "The match was later released in full" - as the release was in 2006 and the previous sentence refers to a 2010 programme, maybe omit "later"? Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final, so is there a source that states otherwise?
Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final. Is there a source that states otherwise? Lead still says "The match was released in full". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)][reply]
"world number one" and "defending champion" repeated in consecutive sections. Maybe amend the first to mention that he was the top seed as defending champion?
Road to the final: "a three frame lead throughout much of the match" - "throughout much of the match" doesn't seem to fit. (Unless at least a three frame lead ?)
Road to the final: four of five consecutive sentences start with "Davis..."; two consecutive sentences start with "Taylor played.." and four, including these, with "Taylor..." Maybe reword.
Match report: text has "Taylor started the 1985 final with a break of over 50" but match statistics section shows a break of exactly 50 in the first frame.
Match report: "Davis appeared the more nervous of the two players and was beginning to make unforced errors" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the espn source cited.
Davis' loss to Higgins in the 1983 UK Championship final after leading 7-0 (Hendon, Everton, Williams & Gadsby) (From Snooker Scene, June 1985: "Scar tissue forms on boxer's eyebrows but in snooker player's minds. Some of the latter re-opened copiously in this classic final.")
Taylor's glasses (Hendon, Williams & Gadsby) (started using them in 1983?)
As much as Taylor himself is defined by the glasses, and the final by proxy, I'm not really sure what we can really say, other than he wore unusually sized glasses. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davis missing a green in the ninth frame as the turning point (Nunns) (the miss on the green is already in the article)
Looking at some of the contemporary reporting, (mindful of TRM's comment that "7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article"), there isn't all that much about the match before the final frame other than descriptions of breaks and Taylor's hue. The info about the breaks is already in the final table, so I'm not sure there is all that much missing. Any reviewers with access to newspaper archives with a different opinion? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not too hung up on this. The IBSF World Snooker Championship is generally regarded as the world championship for amateurs, but some professionals have been allowed to compete. Also, some amateurs are now allowed into the World Snooker Championship (WSC) by invitation (or by winning specified qualifying tournaments). I think in 1985 it was only members of the WPBSA that could enter the WSC, and really the distinction was between members and non-members rather than amateur and professional - top amateurs earnt more than most professionals. I've looked in the past for a source that says the WSC is the official world championship of snooker and not found one. (Whose authority would it be on, anyway? The World Confederation of Billiards Sports recognised both last time I looked.) I'm not sure what we do in other sports; if calling this the official world championship is within policy then I have no issues. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about the double use of "professional", but that's not a huge deal. Fairly obviously, it can't be described as "official" unless that is solidly supported. At the moment it seems to be sourced to a 1927 newspaper article. Lee, anywhere else supporting "official"? Or less than 94 years old? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"bracket" is horrible. Almost anything would be better IMO. Not a show stopper, but coming to this cold it was about the one thing which really jarred.
"Road to the final", the Taylor parragraph: five sentences - one starts "Dennis Taylor", the next four with "Taylor". I know it's tricky, but is a bit of variety possible?
"the middle of the baulk cushion". Maybe 'the middle of the baulk (bottom) cushion' or 'the middle of the baulk - bottom - cushion'?
I try very hard NOT to use top or bottom in describing cushions, as on the broadcast it has the baulk at the top of the screen, despite being a bottom cushion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I hadn't noticed that.
It's a bugbear of me, probably because I watch too much snooker. It's done on commentary all the time "onto the bottom cushion at the top of your screen!"
Is the bottom left pocket really known as the "green corner pocket"? If so, it seems unnecessarily technical.
It's horribly technical. I know a little about the sport and I was looking at my hands and trying to visualise where I was standing. But if "top" and "bottom" are confusing I am stumped for better ideas.
Left and right is all about perspective too, which is why it's usually done by colour. I could just say "corner pocket", as which pocket it was doesn't really matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are OK with that. IMO it would improve the article.
Davis, however, claimed that he was "the best in the world this year." - I started a different query and half way through realised that Davis was referring to Taylor. I think that the context of the quote in the article means that this is not clear.
"Davis mentions how close he was to being able to pot a pink which he snookered himself on that changed the course of the match". Grammatically this is correct, but it takes a couple of read throughs to work out what is meant.
Nice work. An optional comment on the green pocket issue above, I shall engage with Benny when they get back to us. But nothing to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davis was appearing in his fourth final, and it was Taylor's second. - I wonder if this may be rephrased because the sentence structure of these two clauses is inconsistent. E.g. "The event was Davis's fourth final and Taylor's second"
The climax in the early hours of Monday 29 April was viewed by 18.5 million people in the United Kingdom, which remains a record viewing figure for BBC2 - also as of 2020?
The match is often considered the most famous snooker match of all time, and the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s despite there not being a single century break.
Is the phrase "often considered" applicable to both clauses of this sentence? I.e. "The match is often considered [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s".
Or does the phrase "often considered" refer merely to "the most famous snooker match of all time"? I.e. "The match is [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s". I ask this because I don't see anything about an 80s-90s surge in the text.
For those who are unfamiliar with snooker, is the lack of a century break uncommon?
It is the only "Crucible" final (i.e. World Snooker Championship final since 1977) not to feature a century break. (A source for this, up to and including 2019, is Chris Downer's Crucible Almanac, 2019 edition, p.187.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. - "held" is repeated in close succession
He then played David Taylor in the second round holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match and eventually won 13–4, after winning seven frames out of eight - this may be a run-on sentence because of the lack of commas, and the comma that is there may not be necessary. I would rewrite this as, "He then played David Taylor in the second round, holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match, and eventually won 13–4 after winning seven frames out of eight".
This was Davis's fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984. - This is a dangling modifier, as "having won the event" modifies "[the] final" when it should modify "Davis". More grammatically correct is something like "Davis was competing in his fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984." However, I think it can be refined into a better wording.
The black missed but rebounded up and down the table - If I'm understanding correctly, it reverberated between either side of the table? I think there may be a better word for this, but at the moment, it has not occurred to me.
Taylor cited defeating Thorburn, who he described - I think it would be "whom he described", as Thorburn is the object of the description. In other words, Taylor had described him (Thorburn). Same as and Davis, who he described, as Davis is also the object of the description.
He would, however, win the following three in a row between 1987 and 1989, - I wonder if it would be suitable to say something similar to "He would, however, win the subsequent three" or "He would, however, win all the finals between 1987 and 1989". In the context, it may be repetitive. The "following year's final", mentioned in the previous sentence, is assumed to be 1986. Furthermore, the time span of 1987–1989 is consecutive, so "in a row" is almost definitely repetitive.
Support. I don't think there is anything else of concern. I should've noted earlier that I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review, so I'll make that declaration now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a prose review, I'll go through the article and do some copy-editing. After that's done, I'll spot-check about ten citations at random; any more than five major issues, and I'll do another five. I'm not anticipating any problems, given your prestigious pedigree! Might be tomorrow, but it might be Monday. Bear with. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There's a lot I don't understand in this article... thankfully, there are wiki-links! There's some kind of template being used for some of them, though, which made it a nuisance to check what they meant in Visual Editor. Anyway, here's my spot checks:
2. Fine
3. Fine
7. Fine
8. Fine
19. Fine
36. Fine
Thanks to me now having a Wiki Library card, I have access to newspapers.com, but thanks for the offer, Benny.
13. Pass
14. Pass
Everything is laid out clearly; reference formatting is all fine, as I can see it. Passes the spot check easily. I've carried out some minor copy-editing (feel free to revert any you disagree with). I'm sorry this review is so brief but it didn't take very long at all. Good job, Lee. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the hand-crafted table in "Road to the final" compliant with MOS:DTT?
Tbh, I'd totally forgotten about both tables. I have reworked both of these to meet the MOS. The second one could do with some sort of line to seperate it down the middle, but otherwise looks better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis' " as I'm sure you know, MOS insists that use "Davis's" or seek to reword if it's awkward. Of course that's junk advice from MOS but dem's da rulez.
General: I know this is mainly about the "black ball" frame, you cover the preceding 34 frames in about 230 words, 7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article.
I'm sorry, but pretty much every source I have talks about the main event so-to-speak. Contemporary sourcing pretty much mentions the scores, that Davis was 7-0 ahead after the first session, Taylor won well in the second session. BennyOnTheLoose might have some more info from contemporary sources, but I do remember it being pretty dry Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"62–44 in points," not sure "in points" is required here.
Not sure you need three things for winning a frame, i.e. a higher score, a bold text and a dagger. Besides, you use bold in situations where it isn't denoting a winning frame, like who is winning at the end of a session, highest break etc.
Is that hand-crafted finals score table MOS:DTT compliant?
Did Taylor have anything to say on that retrospective show?
He did - mostly that was going to have a go at any shot that came up, but I'd have to get my video out to see what he actually said. I don't remember it being particularly quotable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With millions of daily players, League of Legends is one of the world's biggest games. As I think is often the case, I began editing primarily to fix two articles; one of those was League, and it’s come a long way since then. The game can be complicated, but my hope is that it is digestible for readers and editors who have never played it. The developer, Riot Games, has been busy, releasing two spin-offs since 2019 (with a third, a single-player RPG, scheduled for this year). I want the article to be the best that it can be for anyone wondering: what the f$%k is League of Legends? Although popular, the game also has a famously negative player base, and Riot has attempted to tackle that (with mixed results). This is my first FA nomination, so I have a few people to thank for their advice, encouragement, and helping me to become a (semi-)competent editor. Several of them are not FA reviewers, but I want to thank them here anyway.
Greetings ImaginesTigers and welcome. That sounds interesting. If time permits I shall review it myself. I would like to flag up that as a first-time FAC nominator this article will require a spot check of its citations as well as the usual source review. This is usual, and in nominations after your first successful one this is likely to be less rigorous, or taken on faith. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Gog! I've seen that on a few other first-time noms while researching, so thankfully not a total shock; still a little scary, though. Let's see if I've been up to the task! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Hi there! Is there something in particular you're looking for wrt this nomination? I'd be happy to try and call in some favours to expedite the process, if so. If you're just looking for more general feedback, I will just wait :) Sorry to bother you! (A lot of the feedback has been moved to the Talk page, if you're wondering why it’s so short!) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was present at the peer review, but only extensively looked into the Reception section. I'm gonna look and give suggestions for the entire article this time around. Waiting for comments can be a pain, so I'll do this early on to keep you busy for... maybe a day. Le Panini[🥪]00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Since its release on October 27, 2009..." Adding the full release date here is redundant, as its already stated in the infobox. This could be changed to "Since its release on October 27, 2009, the game has been..."
MoS/VG says release date should be included in the lead; I think that one of the reasons it’s good to have it there is, if you Google "When was League of Legends released?", it pulls from the lead for a concise answer, but I don't believe Google can pull from info-boxes.
I've looked into it, and searching up when Darius Gaiden came out, it pulls from the infobox. Namcokid47 removed this from PMTOK due to it being unnecessary, so I assume its regular practice.
Experience points is mentioned multiple times in the article. This can be abbreviated using (XP) at its first occurrence.
Thanks! Fixed.
The third paragraph is about esports, and the fourth is about reception. I think moving the esports paragraph to the end would make more sense.
Agreed. Thanks!
"A massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on League is in development."League of Legends is abbreviated to League here, but this is done no where else in the article. To me, this is off-putting.
You're right; fixed!
Gameplay
The simplified map's caption goes into a lot of detail. Some of the info here (such as "The fountains, where players appear at a game's beginning," is explained in the text, and doesn't really need to be specified. This can help shorten the caption a bit.
Fixed!
Ultra Rapid Fire is simplified with (URF), but is only used one other time. The other use can be changed to "In the mode,"
Good catch. Done.
"Players in a lane "farm"—killing minions to accumulate gold and XP—and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same." Remove the "and" here
Development
"...the publishers were confused by the game's free-to-play business model and lack of a single-player model." "Model" is repeated twice here.
Fixed!
I think having the list of the original seventeen champions falls under the lines of WP:GAMECRUFT. It would be better if this specified there were seventeen, but not listing them out.
Yeaaaaah. WP:VG told me that the initial roster was pretty vital, but I'm inclined to agree tbh. Readers can look at the citations!
"making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018 behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." According to the Wikipedia list linked, it's also behind Arena of Valor.
The source I used doesn't mention AoV. Weirdly, My source is also used on the other page for LoL and Fortnite, but AoV comes from somewhere unless. I've had a look and I can't find much to say that the citation they use for AoV (Sensor Tower) is reliable or reputable. What do you think?
Simplest answer, find a source for it. Another solution, you can easily remove the "behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." part if you can't find any sources, and just change the source to "As of August 2018, the game had an active user base of over 111 million players and an annual revenue of US$1.4 billion, making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018."
I did this earlier, yeah. Seemed easier.
"..and contained no political themes." What does this mean? I don't think it's worth mentioning.
It’s basically an elaboration of what came before—there were no political/social themes in the story before. But I agree--the good vs evil bit does the job.
Miscellaneous
I see a lot of em dashes in this article. Is there something these do that a comma can't? Some could be worked out of the article for better reading purposes.
Can you point to any places where they're disruptive? I find that they distinguish parentheses much more neatly than commas do, and I think this might just be a case of style. If others say that the dashes are hurting readability, I'll purge 'em ^_^
But looking back, you used em dashes to respond back to me, so I'm assuming its just how you write. Unless if others have issues with it, I won't get nitpicky.
I love an em dash. I use them constantly in essays, too, but I don't think I ever mis-use them or damage clarity with them. We'll see what others say and circle back to this one.
Hi Tigers! Glad to see you moving into FA. This is my first time commenting at FAC, so it's possible I'm being too picky for what's expected. I also don't necessarily expect you to make changes every time I point something out, I'm just noting what stands out to me as a reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh thanks PMC! I'm sure your suggestions are great. Let's dive in!
Thanks so much, PMC. Thanks for doing this. Really great suggestions—I've left a few questions for you above. Getting feedback from people who haven't played is so great. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the changes, I'll probably get around to commenting on the rest of the article within the next couple days or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that these comments are written without reviewing the rest of the FAC and may be redundant to them; feel free to ignore any that are addressed elsewhere or just mark them as such.
Post-release
to ensure no strategy dominated - probably being picky, but "no one strategy" maybe?
Done!
Maybe split the paragraph? I realize it would make two stubby paragraphs rather than one nice chunky sized one but currently you're discussing two topics, patches and employees, in one.
This definitely looks ugly, but done!
Revenue model
an achievement system to tally champion-specific milestones, purchasable with Riot Points - I don't understand this. What are players buying here?
I don't really know what to do with this one... I've added a wiki-link to Achievement (video games); does that help? It really is just a system that tracks champion-specific milestones. How many times you've killed an enemy with X ability, that sort of thing. I've just had a look and I can't reliably source any examples
Okay, now I understand that the system as a whole costs you points to unlock but I still don't think the sentence communicates that very clearly (at first I read it like you paid for each individual achievement). I think achievement systems are common enough that you could get away with just wikilinking it and not explaining it in detail, so trimming it down to something like: "an achievement system that could be activated with Riot Points" might be better for clarity.
Done!
paid to play the game - I assume this means "paid for cosmetics etc", but the wording makes that unclear.
Fixed!
client-based game standard - what is a client-based game? this is the first instance of that phrase in the article and it feels jargony. At the very least it ought to be a bluelink.
This was a suggestion from the source review, but Eddie had told me to change it back and I said nah it’s fine and left it, so I've put it back to "industry standard"
Are there any sources that dispute or update Weidemann's 2014 analysis?
Nope!
Well, that blows :P
I would swap the order of the last two sentences so you go from "large player base" -> "111 million players" -> "3 billion hours".
Good catch.
Plot
As this section goes into post-release revamp of the lore and talks about hiring writers etc, maybe it could be merged with the Post-release section above to create one larger section? It just seems odd to have two separate-but-related subsections.
I actually think this is necessary. Some people will come to this article looking for a section about the plot, and anchoring it to "Post-release" just doesn't feel right to me. The section was a compromise over a previously existing aspect of the article—a huge heading called "Setting" that was poorly sourced and unsustainable. If it’s okay with you, I will not do this one
Yeah fair enough
Reception
Ryan Scott was critical of the grind required for non-paying players to unlock key gameplay elements - maybe this would be undue, but this isn't mentioned at all in the monetization or gameplay sections. Are key gameplay elements still locked behind grinding and paywalls for new players? I was under the impression that there's no pay-to-win and the only paid content is aesthetic in nature.
This was only a thing at release and doesn't exist anymore
Is it possible to make that clearer, even if you have to footnote it? Otherwise it gives the impression that it's still in the game, which is confusing. Same with the mention of it in the reassessment section.
Done in both places
with key features missing - do we know what ones?
Yeah, the next two sentences mention that there was a promised in-game store that wasn't available; GameStar refused to carry out their review because of it
Is that it though? An in-game store doesn't strike me as a "key" launch feature; I wouldn't call a game underdeveloped for not having it.
In 2009, it was a pretty big feature. The fact that the game went free-to-play absolutely sunk Heroes of Newerth. Riot mentioned skins and customisation in a big press release, and it really was hyped by the press and on forums. People were hugely disappointed that it wasn't there.
But that's not "key features" plural, that's one promised feature that they biffed. The current wording sounds like they pulled a No Man's Sky, but what you're saying here makes it sound much different.
I have deleted "with key features missing"
Reassessment
with IGN's explaining - I don't think this needs the 's
Oop's. Fixed!
GameSpot from 6 to 9 - is there a typo in your dates for the sources for this? Both say Oct 2013 but one is labelled a launch review, which would be a bit late by then. Also might be worth specifically noting the increases came after several years (vs weeks or months)
The GameSpot thing is a database error. They migrated their database, but it was originally published in October or November 2009. This is well-documented as a problem with GameSpot's reviews from that period; you can check the WP:VG archives. I can't tell exactly when it came out, so I don't want to specify a year because I just don't know, unfortunately. Bad issue, I know, but GameSpot are a high-quality, reliable source otherwise
Oh, that's fucky. Okay, no problem.
Is it possible to find a citation for any particular champion that's a focus of the gender-based design criticism? Commons has a lot of League cosplay pics (Commons:Category:Cosplay_of_League_of_Legends), and I wonder if we could include one as an example of the so-called horny Clash-esque designs. I know it sounds like I'm being horny on main here trying to get cosplay pics into the article but I think it's a relevant illustration of a major design critique (that is, how many of the female designs in LoL conform to a "skinny hot girl in tight or revealing clothes" archetype).
I've added one!
Again the unlock rate is mentioned, but is never discussed previously. Can we mention it earlier, maybe in gameplay?
It doesn't exist anymore, and I've tried to keep the gameplay section free from anything that is likely to change. It’s only the core gameplay: very few names of buffs, monsters, things that Riot can (and does) change regularly. The unlock rate is also not gameplay; champions are acquired by playing and completing "missions", but this is a recent change, and I can't source it :( Riot have changed the way champions are unlocked many, many times
Right, I was under the impression it was still in the game, which is why I asked. See my comment about the earlier mention of it though.
Working on this! Let me know what you think.
Now that the other thing has been footnoted (and clarified that it refers to a separate annoying system of unlocks) I think this can be left alone.
Player culture
I recognize that this is probably a sourcing issue, but you have one sentence about how nasty the player base is, and then immediately pivot to Riot claiming it's just a small portion having a bad day. To me, this sounds like total corporate horseshit, and I'm curious to see if there are any reliable sources that dispute Riot's rather charitable perspective. I'm also curious if there's any that discuss the psychology of why people are such dicks about LoL, and maybe if it's actually valid that they are worse in LoL compared to other esports games like Starcraft or Overwatch. (I have zero intention of opposing if this isn't available, I just want to know if it is)
I've fixed the sentence you're having problems with, because of very similar feedback from Eddie. I wish there was more to dispute or support Riot's statements, but - for what it’s worth - I think I agree with it. Players do just have bad days and act out, and in team-based games it is really common. It happens in Overwatch, too (in my experience), but I've never played StarCraft. I'll add that these problems don't exist in Riot's non-team games (TFT is played by one player alone). I think it’s just a bigger issue in LoL because of the game's size
Okay, fair enough!
In esports
This is a good top-level summary for a section that has a spinout article.
have outperformed those of physical sports - can you clarify if this means at specific events, over a specific period of time, or something else? Or maybe give an example or comparison? As written it verges on claiming that LoL esports viewership exceeds all physical sports worldwide, which I'm going to assume is not the case.
Done! Similar feedback from Eddie, too.
Riot sells sponsorships and streaming rights to its leagues is redundant to The company sells streaming rights to the game, no?
Yep! It’s even the same reference. I think I've just moved things around and not deleted the worse bit (the part without the example). Fixed.
League of Legends: Wild Rift is an version of the game - typo, and may want to clarify that it's upcoming or still in beta
My plan was not to mention it at all because I might forget to update it. The sources will be much stronger once the game's officially released. Thoughts?
I think it's probably better to mention that it's not out yet, but I wouldn't oppose based on that alone, and I'm not going to press it.
game was a single-player - should probably be "will be" since it's unreleased
I think I disagree here. The third and final game to be announced was the RPG, and the game will be a single-player, but the language that currently exists seems right to me
Yeah I see what you mean.
The third and final contradicts the Dec 2020 announcement of the MMORPG; maybe reword to "the third game announced at the anniversary" or something similar?
Yeah, that's what it should have said (Eddie said the same!), fixed :D
In other media
Could this section be folded into Spin-offs to reduce header clutter? You could have "Spin-offs and other media" as your top-level, then Games, Music, Comics, Animated series as your secondary headers. Not a hill I'd die on.
This is a great idea—let's die on this hill together. Done!
Yeah! Done, second paragraph (I don't want to de-link heavy metal)
Is it plausible to get the K/D/A promo image from that article in here, since the article discusses the fact that the band is promotional for the virtual cosmetics?
This was initially in, but was removed at peer review because it failed as free use
Ah, c'est la vie.
Is there any update for the Comics section? Did the Marvel collab announced in 2018 actually go through?
It did, and the article originally included details, but I had to delete them because Dot Esports was considered not high quality enough in the source review :/ I can't find replacements
This is a primary source, but it at least confirms that the comics did come out; I think it's reasonable to use it to verify that.
Unfortunately, Eddie has been rejecting anything that came out even 2 days prior to something coming out, and this was pre-release :/
Okay, that's as much nitpicking as I have for now. I know it looks like a lot combined with my original comments, but I'm not here to fail you, and I am willing to be flexible on the majority of it. An article of this scope is a monumental undertaking, and you're dealing with a lot of commentary and a lot of sourcing and research, so take your time and don't worry about a speedy response. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback was great! I have left some comments (things I didn't change/need further advice on), but I don't think they were among the most pressing ones. Some great feedback—thank you! :D — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot PMC. You've left a couple other comments but I'm going to sleep now & deal with them tomorrow :] I really appreciate you taking the time, and all the feedback you gave. The article is much better for it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for the coords that the two minor outstanding comments have been dealt with, and I am reaffirming my support. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you'd take a break after four Million Awards...! I'll be reviewing the article soon, hopefully before Tuesday. For the record, I have never played nor seen the game (beyond a few short clips whose complexity confused me to no end). Ovinus (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ovinus! Like I just said to PMC, feedback from non-players is so crucial for this sort of game. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, and I'm looking forward to it. As for a break? The grind can never stop. There are articles that need fixin' :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically it from me! A great article. As Gog the Mild noted I think it would have benefited from a copyedit; such edits comprise basically 90% of my notes here, but as a reviewer I don't think I'm supposed to touch the article. Peace, Ovinus (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus I just want to offer a very sincere apology along with an even more sincere thank you. It would have been really easy—and completely fair—for you to oppose on the grounds of it requiring a copy edit. Jumping straight from PR to FAC without giving it a thorough read-through (and second pair of eyes) was, in hindsight, a huge mistake—one that, if I do any more FANs, won't be repeated. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this; it was more generous than I deserved. Regarding not touching the article, I don't mind that you didn't make the changes yourself—I learned things I wouldn't have learned just by reviewing the changes—but I have been copy-editing FARs, so I hope that isn't true and I don't get in trouble. Thanks again, Ovinus. Drop me a message when your article is ready (whether at PR or FAC). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose?? The article is great and written very well—I just had a few line edits. Plus I don't have a particularly good command of English and apparently don't like commas. You'll notice I incorrectly used "comprise" a few hours ago, heh! Sorry if I sounded harsh or was intimidating. I'll take a look over your replies tonight or tomorrow morning. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed most of the things and the comments that remain are those left to address (or just chatter/responses that don't need action). I'll probably re-read the article once in a week or two. I'd like to express my gratitude that you're working on such an important article in terms of viewership. While I admire those make featured content on comparatively obscure topics, I particularly admire those who bring forth highly visible articles. Maybe that's just an excuse to be more picky, knowing how many eyes will see your work, I dunno. But thank you. Ovinus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus: Sorry about the delay; another editor brought some glaring issues with Player culture to my attention so I was fixing them urgently. All done now. The kind words are appreciated; it’s nice that you noticed. I'm going to keep it up, but I will be moving off the video game subject for a while. I just picked League as a good first FAC because I know the subject well. Thanks again, and looking forward to anything else you can add. Given that you are mostly done, it might be a good time for me to perform the Gog Summoning Ritual? Just waiting on Eddie finishing up the spot checks now, so I think the article should be pretty stable (pending any new reviewers). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a knife to hand. A cake, I do not. The choice, made; my fate, sealed. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
Hahaha, I can't tell if that's some literary allusion. On a walk today I thought of something: does LoL spread players among games by language/skill level? Or is it completely random? I don't know if that's sourceable, or even worthy of inclusion. The other thing was whether the "Game modes" section header is needed. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: Sorry; I didn't see this until everything was moved onto Talk. So first answer is yes/no. Language specifically, no; the client separates players by regions so that network delay doesn't cause problems. Europe has one server; North America another, and so on. Originally there was a fair amount of server info in the article but I had to remove the vast majority of it. Stuff from the early days of League's servers just isn't easy to find now, unfortunately. RE: skill level, yeah. It’s mentioned in the first paragraph of Summoner's Rift (there is no ranked queue for ARAM). Players are matched with others within the general vicinity of their rank (it’s well-known among players that game quality goes down late at night, for example, and some players have used that to climb quicker). Not really sourceable, though. RE: headers, good point! I've gone ahead and done that. I do like the "scope" that that heading provided, keeping things contained, but I think it’s still implicit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while we're on the topic, there is another area I'm aware of that's absent. Riot Games isn't the only publisher of League of Legends. A company called Garena oversees the game for the South-East Asia region. It’s a really bizarre situation, and one Riot clearly regrets. Unfortunately, impossible to source. I've spent hours and hours looking in total, and I haven't been the only one. Another WP:VG editor on the Discord joined in the search, and there was just nothing that would pass the HQ RS requirement. The only place it’s mentioned in the article is the infobox, because I can't even find information about when that happened (it was very early in League's lifetime). Beyond this FAC, I will continue to look. I have a source which mentions a falling out Riot had with a company to oversee the European servers. I know the company is called Goa, a video game-focused subsidiary of Orange, but the HQRS I have that mentions it... doesn't even name the company. I could probably still find a way to mention it in Post-release, though, but doing it without being able to mention the company is weird. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: I went through the article again. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see some your responses to my comments that aren't reflected in the article. For example, "random effects" is still there, and "Kotaku's reviewer, Brian Crecente," is still there. "Downloadable content" wasn't put back in as you said. Have you just not gotten to it, or maybe it's VisualEditor related? Let me know; while I could note what I find, I'd rather not repeat myself. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noticed that "The lead designer of social systems, Jeffrey Lin" is repeated twice in the Player culture section. I think before supporting I'll have to go through the article again and make sure that it's stable. Ovinus (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: From what I can tell the comments I made most recently (after collapsing my resolved comments) were the only ones not actioned on. They are above. Maybe you didn't press save? Not sure about the Jeffrey Lin thing though, so I shall go through once more after we figure this out. Ovinus (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, supporting on prose, neutrality and on comprehensiveness. I can't think of any missing salient info that I haven't brought up and confirmed to be un-sourceable. Amazing job!! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "The game is available for Microsoft Windows and macOS." I can't seem to find this in the main article.
I can't find a great place for it. There isn't enough high quality sourcing to sustain a "release" subheading unfortunately, and development just doesn't feel right. One source is enough to cover both, so I've added it to the infobox.
The lead is a summary of the main article. If its not in the main article, it can't go in the lead. Or the infobox.
I guess I can put it in post-release.
That would seem sensible.
"with each team occupying and defending their own half of the map". Maybe something like 'with each team defending their own half of the map and attempting to attack their opponents'. Or have I got that wrong? No, I see it at the end of the paragraph. Any reason why these two, similar aspects are separated by a lot of detail on gameplay?
I don't know what you mean here. The context of them battling at the end involves minions; I can't make this change without restructuring a lot. It took so long to write this because of how interconnected all the systems are -- moving the sentence I think you mean would confuse the reader instantly (if you mean Players in a lane kill minions to accumulate gold and XP ("farming") and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same.
OK. It's not how I would phrase it, but it's your call, not mine.
Suggest that all uses of " level up" are replaced by 'gain levels'.
A control+f returned one result, so that one was easy!
"one of the enemy team's inhibitors are destroyed". "are" → 'is'.
Thank you. Fixed!
"These monsters requires multiple players to defeat and grant special abilities to its slayers' team." "its" → 'their'.
And "requires" -> "require", too. Whoops! This was a suggestion from Ovinus :p
"players must be vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities". I can't quite work this out. And so far as I can, I don't see why it especially applies to ARAM.
The map is very narrow, so abilities are (comparatively) harder to avoid. In Summoner's Rift, the map is very large, and you have a lot more freedom to move around.
So maybe 'players need to be more vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities than in Summoner's Rift'?
BOLD SO YOU CAN FIND NEW COMMENTS EASIER. I don't know. Eddie has been pretty strict about me saying things that aren't directly corroborated by the source so far. Honestly, I'm having some difficulty with feedback (generally, not you in particular—please don't misunderstand!) like this because Eddie has been really strict, but a lot of the feedback is asking for clarifications that I'd be happy to do but aren't within the source. The source says: The close-quarters nature of [ARAM's] map requires players to move efficiently and with quick reflexes so as to avoid enemy abilities. It doesn't mention SR at all.
Eddie is very strict like that. They should do more source reviews. Hint. OK. Whenever a reviewer asks for something which can't be collaborated they should immediately back off. This may, of course, lead to a different discussion. Eg around "just because you can source it, doesn't mean it has to be in the article".
I can live with what is there as a reasonable paraphrase of the source.
"Jew was intimately familiar with DotA". Optional: a different word to "intimately"?
Let's go with "very"
"to ensure no strategies dominated". Not certain, but possibly that should be 'strategy'?
It isn't more accurate, no, but it will throw readers who haven't played the game off less for sure, so I'll make this change.
"Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season." Maybe 'Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season, which lasts a year.'?
Not supported by the source. I remember your frustration with this earlier, so I've just removed it.
Your call, but it seems important, so if all that can be supported is what was there before, feel free to put it back in. I will have to live with my frustration.
BOLDING SO YOU CAN SEE THIS. I can put it back. I understand that it’s frustratingly unclear on what that means...
As I said, your call. I think that we can both see pros and cons, and it is "your" article, so you get to decide.
"writing character biographies of a few paragraphs in length". Does "in length" add anything?
"League of Legends received generally favorable reviews", When? Perhaps 'On initial release League of Legends received generally favorable reviews'?
I've just looked through other video game FAs, and I can't see any that do this (1, 2, 3, 4). This wasn't me cherry-picking; I just picked several out of Featured articles#Video games. It isn't spelled out in the Manual of Style, but the first thing under Reception is always the reception at the game's release (or slightly after). I've looked at movies, too, and I always can't find any precedent (1, 2). If you insist, I will implement with light grumbles
I really don't care what other articles say. And this is by no means a deal breaker. But the immediately prior paragraph starts "In September 2014, Riot Games rebooted the game's fictional setting ..." I honestly thought that the "generally favorable reviews" referred to this reboot until quite some way into the section. I don't see why it is an issue to you, but if it is, leave it; I have seen worse tripwires in FAs.
Added it :)
"was available from purchase from retailers" "from" → 'for'.
Oops!
"even for those who purchased the retail version". What is a "retail version"? I thought that it was free to play.
It was a limited edition that I can find nothing about other than this review, and the League of Legends wikia :p
"problematic bugs". Delete "problematic", what other sort is there? OK. I see your comment above. What does the source actually say?
The source says: LoL has some bugs, however, and not the type to induce lulz. I ran into a number of sound looping problems during the game – nothing that would cause crashes, but really irritating to say the least. I also ran into some occasions where attacks would simply… stop. For no reason evident. Bizarre, and frustrating. The game managed to eschew any major crashes though, so for the most part, I was able to play games to completion. I do stand by problematic here; he even references that bugs can be funny ("induce lulz"), but that they weren't game-breaking. I think "problematic" is a good word for that. That said, I've changed it to "frustrating" :)
Bleh! OK.
"The expansion of the champion roster". When did this happen.
Constantly! I've updated Post-release with some info about that. An accidental omission!
"the game's recommendations "might as well be required items"" This makes no sense to me.
OK. Supporting. You have seemed a cheerful and responsive nominator, for which thank you. I hope that the experience hasn't been too harrowing for you, you certainly seem to have had a lot thrown at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My fault for not copy editing! Thanks a lot, Gog. Feel free to post on my Talk when you have an active FAC (I don't check WP:FAC, so you'll have to tell me). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, but you will almost certainly be told that it won't be promoted until it has been at FAC for longer. If you want to nominate a second FAC you can ask my permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I want to start proper work on Dracula but feel like I can't really get stuck in until this is over, one way or another; I find it hard to juggle multiple things. I understand that the process has to be lengthy, but it has killed my momentum. I'll just wait for more reviews. In trying to be responsive I've burned myself out a bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Gog. Sorry to bother you again. I'm wondering if you could give me any advice on what might still be needed? It’s hanging over me like the sword of Damocles. I reached out to another reviewer for further feedback (David), but if there's anything you can tell me the reviews are still missing, I'd really like to get it dealt with. University has started up again for me and I'm worried about missing reviews when I plunge headlong into writing my dissertation. Hope you're well! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks sound to me - which is not a guarantee. Two coordinators, including me, have recused to review this, so the decision is down to Ian Rose. I suspect that they are waiting to see if any further reviewers wish to step in with comments. We don't like to rush nominations through without giving adequate time for the community to comment, and some reviewers like to allow the early dust to settle before reading an article. It has been up for three weeks today, so they will possibly be looking it over in the next few days. What you need to do is that most difficult of things - nothing. I promise that this won't be archived just because you are busy and miss a review or ping. So get into that dissertation and consider this a character building experience. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ealdgyth! So this is what a source review is. I've been really carefully curating the sources on this page for a long time, so I have reviewed your cheat sheet, and I am ready to explain. Let's take them one by one.
Firstly, InvenGlobal. I've purged both instances: the first was supporting a statement already confirmed by a stronger source (PC Gamer), and was added by someone directly following a big announcement (as happens with big franchises like this), so sorry about that. The second was citing Julia Lee as an executive producer. This was my first big project as a new editor... I purged most of the info-box when I started, but had left in Lee's interview because of the interview exception. Although it might be permissible to say who she is, I see now that she's an executive producer and, per WP:VG's Infobox doc, executive producers shouldn't be listed in info-boxes. Struck.
Dot Esports are weird! Surprisingly niche, but very well-established in that niche. To just name a few to give you a sample of their pedigree, they are regularly quoted by Reuters (1, 2), Wired, Polygon, and PC Gamer. A former writer for ESPN, Jacob Wolf, made an appearance in The Washington Post for moving from ESPN to Dot Esports. You can even see some of his writing on League for ESPN in the Gameplay section of my nomination :)
Rift Herald. This might be a controversial one, but I hope not? In the early stages of this article, I purged every instance of them I could find. I've softened a bit since then, permitting two references. I'll explain: Rift Herald is a publication of Polygon, and its staff members—including the writer of the article cited to RH, is an employee of Polygon, with a Polygon email address. If you scroll to the bottom of their home-page, their Ethics Statement is Polygon's own. I think their use in the article is incredibly sparing; it’s providing a direct example of what was mentioned before—that Riot Games' behavioural team focuses on rewarding good behaviour, rather than punishing bad (citing a major system which does just that).
The YouTube link... Total disclosure, I was super new when I added that (as opposed to now, when I'm just a little new); it was supporting a music video's view count, but that was a bit pointless without context. I've replaced it with a reliable source and added some more context to convey more info to non-gamers.
And finally, despite its horrendously tacky name, that giant: GamesIndustry.biz. How reputable is it? Well, it’s owned by the same company as Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, USgamer, all very reliable sources for video games. Their reporting been reproduced by those outlets, but let's assume there's a COI there, and ignore them. What's left? There's NME, Engadget, Gematsu, Kotaku, IGN, The Verge, GameSpot, Ars Technica, GamesRadar. Non-gaming press includes the newspapers WS County Times, AS.com (Diario AS), and The Washington Post (1,2).
Just a quick note to say "yes, I've seen this". today was ... bouncy and we're getting up early again tomorrow so i don't have time to actually reply until the morning when we get on the road and hopefully i'll be able to set the laptop up and work. today was too bouncy. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I drove a lot today, and I feel utterly depleted... Looking forward to when you get back to it, but there's no rush—you arrived way quicker than I anticipated! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded by Dot.esports. The others work fine, but I'm not seeing how dotesports is meeting the high quality bar here. It might barely pass the plain WP:RS standard, but we are looking for higher. And it's used a LOT in the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thanks Ealdgyth! If you look at the peer review I did, you can see right at the beginning that I knew Dot Esports was going to be a problem. I was able to replace the vast, vast majority of them, but what was left in felt hard to remove... That said, there isn't much I can do about it, if they need to be struck. I'll try again to find replacements, but chances are that I'm going to be unsuccessful. League's modern state isn't really covered by the mainstream press. Worried about comprehensiveness. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so if you look at the second paragraph of "Player culture", I really can't back up that Riot's anti-toxicity measures have been criticised at all without Dot Esports. That isn't a problem of comprehension, but due weight. First FAN, so any advice would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, minus 2. One is only using them to cite that some sources mention that the game will be released on Switch, and others don't—Riot has said nothing either way, so they're only in the footnote as an example of a publication mentioning the Switch. The other one explains, in a little more detail, why Riot got an Emmy for the 2018 League of Legends World Championship (an AR, CGI dragon). I can remove both of these too, but they're the ones I think would be really useful to keep... Let me know what you want. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ealdgyth. All but one references to Dot Esports have been purged. Just hoping your thought on Fn 116's attached note (which is where the last remaining instance is). Thanks for all your help ^_^ — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The abbreviation is actually used nowhere in the article, and was a remnant from a previous iteration -- I've just removed it. Sources refer to them as either but, honestly, it’s never going to be confused. Had a look at previous VG FA's and even games with much longer names don't always have abbreviated forms. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
The North American league is broadcast on cable television sports channel ESPN. In 2019, the League of Legends World Championship had over 100 million unique viewers, peaking at a concurrent viewership of 44 million, with a minimum prize pool of US$2.5 million. - reorder these sentences, the World Championship is a much bigger thing than the regional league. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One ref error: VanOrd, Kevin (October 17, 2013). "League of Legends – Retail Launch Review". GameSpot. Archived from the original on May 22, 2016. Retrieved January 2, 2021. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "GameSpot" defined multiple times with different content. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. I'm not seeing the ref error, so please let me know if I fixed it :] — ImaginesTigers (talk)
Hi Lee Vilenski, at the risk of being picky, is that a support, or are you still undecided? (You haven't boldened "supporting" and you have made it conditional, so it is hard to tell.) And is the image review a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(As noted, I participated in the peer review.)
I've made some copyedits and MoS fixes to double-check.
Hi there, David. Thanks a lot for participating!
You mention Summoner's rift in the image caption and in prose before you actually introduce it in the following subsection. I took a stab at explaining it was a game mode in the image caption, but you should either explain it in prose or just cut the mention of its name.
Good point; I wouldn't have considered that. Thanks for making that change.
@David Fuchs: I thought you'd already made this change, which is why the delay. I've dropped the name of the mode from the image! I'm not entirely sure I agree (from the lead: "In the game's main mode, Summoner's Rift, a team wins by pushing through to the enemy base and destroying their "nexus", a large structure located within it"), but a straightforward and uncontroversial hill that isn't one I feel like dying on! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know this again. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to go through "my" other articles and make those changes, too.
"League of Legends's patches made keeping pace with the developer's changes a core part of the game"—the emphasis on of seems a little weird and misplaced to me. I think it reads better without it.
Yeah; that's fair! I've made this change.
Since it's now 2021, do we have any good sources for an update to the champion count?
There was originally an update, but it was from Dot Esports—the only source we had to end up removing because of the source review (fair enough). I've just had a look around and I really can't find anything more recent. There are currently 153 champions (soon to be 154)—they add about five or six a year. Open to any advice, but came up short so far.
Yeah—that's why the WaPo source is used there. If you look on the Talk page, we were getting a lot of requests to update the number, so we just made it more general. I can't find anything that even mentions the game has over 150 champions that is an unimpeachable source, though. I've scrolled for a while now. If I do see something, I'll add it, though.
I've done so, but in the future you may want to insert non-breaking spaces for stuff like dollar figures so they are presented as full figures without line breaks.
This one has ben mentioned to me, but thanks for pressing me to actually look up how it works.
Is there a reason for the use of italics at the ends of ref tags or punctuation, for example .?
No! This is weird. Fixed now, but... surprising! Thanks for flagging that up; that's a strange one.
Also, in some places you've dropped the s after an apostrophe, as in League of Legends' player base, while in others you have the s, as in Riot Games's founders. Either is fine, you just need to make it consistent.
@David Fuchs: Fixed these. Do I need to go through and change the titles in the sources? There's about 70 of those so I'll wait till I get your feedback before I make this one. All done otherwise. Thanks for the feedback so far. Means a lot that you took the time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Just to clarify: in the citation titles, it will sometimes just say "League of Legends' toxicity is a big problem" or something like that—should those be standardised too (like what we do with caps)? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given a strict reading of the MOS, I suppose they should? Along with normalizing quotes to straight versus curly or `. It's not something I've ever been bothered with versus worrying about uniformity in the body text where it's most important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any aspects of the game it's neglecting, and it appears a representative slice of the topic. A lot of the additional coverage you could fill an article with would be largely irrelevant to a general-purpose entry (changelogs and balance patches aren't particularly interesting or important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk23:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it gives a good summary of the game for the casual reader. If someone wants more detail, maybe they to start playing the game, they can go to the League of Legends fandom wiki or something like that. More important to the reader than detailed gameplay is reception, criticism, history, impact on culture, etc. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex. This is the second in what I hope will be a series of these articles; the last one was Knap Hill. Causewayed enclosures are a very early relic of the British Neolithic, dating from about the first half of the fourth millennium BC; nobody knows exactly what they were used for, though there are plenty of theories. The article has benefitted from a very thorough and helpful review by Dudley Miles, and also from a local editor, Hassocks5489, who took some local photos including the one used in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Whitehawk_camp_sketch_1821_Skinner_British_Museum_Add_MS_33658_f._68.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Good question; I assumed it was nineteenth century because my source didn't say. Have dug a bit and I think it must have been 1830 1930, since our article on Skinner lists his journal as having been partly published in 1930 and gives a range of BM MS pages that includes this one. I think that makes it PD-UK and I would need a fair use tag. It's currently on Commons, so if you agree I will tag it for deletion there and upload it here as PD-UK with a FUR. You didn't mention File:Whitehawk camp sketch from east 1821 Skinner BM Add MS 33658 f. 68.png; I assume the same will apply there? That's not on Commons yet so if you agree I will change the licence and add a FUR. Is there an age limit for this rule, by the way? Any ms. in the BM prior to Gutenberg has not been "published" unless an image is republished in a printed work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which PD-UK tag would you want to use on the first? On the second, there's a pre-1926 publication listed, which would make it PD in the US; if you're wanting to move it to Commons you'd just need to sort out UK status. On your last question, which rule are you asking about an age limit for? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In c:File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf I think we're following the left-hand path all the way down, which means it became public domain in the UK in 2000 since publication was in 1930. That's after the URAA date. Following c:Commons:Hirtle chart, I think we're in "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section, in either the second or third case (I strongly doubt it was ever published in the US but can't prove it). That means 95 years after 1930, so 2025. Am I misinterpreting these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As there is an author listed, why would we be following the left-hand "author unknown" path?
I'm starting to think I have some sort of learning disability for image rules; I keep misreading things. OK, so it's Yes/Yes/No/Yes/Yes, and copyright expired in 1980, so then it's public domain in the US according to that table. But the Hirtle chart, which I would use to figure out the commons licence template to use, seems to disagree -- or am I misreading that too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was PD in the UK in 1980, in the absence of US publication or copyright renewal I would expect it to fall into the first category of "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section - PD before the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the second, that attribution is my copy-paste mistake; it was not published in that 1912 source. I took it from a 2001 source but as with the first, it would have been in the 1930 edition of Skinner's diaries, so PD-UK, delete from Commons, and a FUR. I'll do both these today unless you tell me otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, for example, suppose a hand-copied ms. from the 12th century is first printed in a book this century, does that still fall under copyright, even though there is no artwork, just writing, because it's hand-written? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Skinner died in 1839, if these rules had been effect in 1909 his work would have become public domain at that time. I assume that these rules came into effect after 1930 so Skinner's work is under copyright still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the section you pointed me at it says "Unpublished works|Life of the author + 70 years|Works from authors who died before 1950" which I took to be the applicable case. This rule, if it had been in effect in 1909, would have made Skinner's work public domain, wouldn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Whitehawk_camp_aerial_view_1930_Williamson.jpg: what is said in the source about the provenance of this image?
File:Whitehawk_camp_excavation_plan_1929_and_1932-1933.png needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Whitehawk_camp_excavations_1929_and_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read more image policy, I now realize that if something is UK-PD it still needs a fair use tag. I would like to keep these as they are clearly very useful, but I don't think I can come up with a FUR that would work and also keep them at a scale that makes them readable. They won't be PD in the US until 2034, since the author died in 1938, unless I am misinterpreting the rules (always possible). Do you agree? If so I'll tag them for deletion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The given tags would put UK expiration after the URAA date. Unless there is another reason for them to be PD, or simultaneous US publication, you are probably correct that they are non-free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN40: don't need to repeat "Culture24" so many times
I removed the "work" parameter; the attribution at the web page is to "Culture24 Reporter", which is effectively no attribution -- I could remove that too if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missing full source information for Allcroft 1908, Williamson 1929
FN52: source link gives a more specific work title; date format should be consistent
I fixed the date. The title tag in the target page is "Bosing - Oxford Reference", which repeats the publisher, so I'd removed it as unnecessary. I've restored it -- I assume that's what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - Oxford Reference compiles entries from a number of different reference sources, and this one in particular is from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have read through your edits to the citations to try to learn from them, and read some of the documentation, e.g. here; I hadn't realized that "website" and "work" were synonyms for cite web and cite news; that will save me from some errors in the future. Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all my concerns have been dealt with, but I have a few further comments.
"The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." This is not quite right. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines an ancient monument as a scheduled monument or "any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it". It would be more accurate to say that the site has been designated as a scheduled monument.
In the 1929 section you say that material in the ditches had been washed in, but for 1932-33 remains had been deliberately buried. Is this different areas or different interpretation? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the 1929 section to make it clear that Sygrave is talking about a specific layer, found in all three excavations, which produced the most finds. The "deliberate burial" mentioned in the 1932-3 dig section refers only to that particular skeleton. Is that clear enough with the current wording? I don't really want to repeat Sygrave's assessment in all three pre-war dig sections -- I put it in the first one because Sygrave is specifically contrasted to Curwen's comments there, and with the new wording I hope the reader will understand it applies to the following sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only for my information, what is a "pulling-up ground"?
At the end of a race, the horses gradually slow down and stop; they pull up, in other words. The pulling up ground is where they pull up. If you look at this Google Maps image in satellite view, you'll see a long dark green rectangle running more or less north/south, cut by Manor Hill Road. That's the pulling up ground. If you follow it north, that's the racecourse itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at a map, and it had me scratching my head. I can now unscratch. As it were. Thanks. Mike.
"to create tools such as points" "points" links only to points used as projectile weapons. Is that what you intended?
Yes; the source only says points but that's the usual meaning in archaeology. The source says "These splinters would usually then be removed and worked into finer tools such as points." I think it would be OK to make this "projectile points" in the article if that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems that the reference to "points" is actually entirely to 'projectile points', then yes, I think adding 'projectile' in the article would be helpful.
"the reconstructed face of the woman found in the 1930s excavations". Maybe 'the reconstructed face of the woman whose remains were found in the 1930s excavations'?
"British Bronze Age" is mentioned 2 times and "Bronze Age" 5. What differentiates them?
The Bronze Age starts with the use of bronze and ends when iron starts being exploited, but this doesn't happen at the same time everywhere, so the dates of the Bronze Age depend on where you're talking about. (See {{Bronze Age}} for some example dates.) That's why there's a difference between the British Bronze Age and the general term Bronze Age. For Bronze Age Britain our article says c. 2500 BC to c. 800 BC; I'd have to check a couple of sources to be sure that's the latest usage but it's about right. However, see the first section there about the disagreements about the boundary. I originally didn't mention the Bronze Age at all, and just gave dates, but Dudley felt it was important to draw the distinction since I did mention the Neolithic, and I think he was right about that -- the southeastern ditch may not have a Neolithic origin, and not saying Bronze Age but giving dates would imply those later dates were in the Neolithic. What do you think the best approach is -- just use "Bronze Age", and put some of this detail in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. There are probably several ways of approaching it that would work. Off hand I would favour using "British Bronze Age" throughout and footnoting the period this specifies at first use. I would be inclined not to include the information on the dating of the period varying geographically, although if you felt that it may aid a reader's understanding I certainly wouldn't object.
I decided to go the other direction; I've changed all the mentions to just say "Bronze Age", and added a footnote to the first mention giving the dates of the Bronze Age in Britain. I feel that's the most concise way to do it. The sources generally just say "Bronze Age" since they assume readers know about the variation in dates, so this way I can follow the source style without needing to mention the variation of the dating in other areas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several Sources are missing available identifiers. Eg, Alcroft (1916) (ISSN 0143-8204).
I am acutely aware I know nothing about such things, so my review is largely about comprehensibility and prose, and I may ask some odd questions
Lead
I'm left wondering what "At least two ditches touch the outermost circuit from the outside" means. Perhaps break it down a bit and mention that they run at tangents from the outer circuit?
I removed the word "tangent" from the lead per an earlier review, but I think it's not the word that's the problem, it's just a hard thing to describe. I've reworded the lead to avoid mentioning their position altogether; I think it would be distracting to make this clear enough in the lead, and it's covered in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would it be accurate to say "a Bronze Age ditch was discovered, and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell."?
I'd rather not phrase it exactly that way since at the time it was discovered nobody knew what it was, and Russell most likely expected it to be part of the Neolithic site. He suggested it may have been a Bronze Age recut of an originally Neolithic part of the site, but again I think that's too much detail for the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go with an alternative though? It is still not great, could we just drop the Bronze Age bit because it is too complex for the lead to explain Russell's conclusions? You have already established that some of the contents of one of the external ditches was radiocarbon dated to the Bronze Age, and that was the ditch Russell excavated, but I agree there is no real need to go into that in the lead. How about "In 1991, during the construction of a housing development near the site, one of the ditches outside the outermost circuit was uncovered (or "located"), and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Description section would benefit from the insertion of the year (and month if available) it was "discovered" early on in the section
If you mean when the site was discovered, there's not a date for that. It's been close to human settlement for literally millennia. I would imagine that by a few hundred years ago it was thought to be the remains of a Roman camp; that was a common description for Neolithic sites, since antiquarians knew nothing of the Neolithic and often adhered to Biblical dating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it would helpful to the reader to know how long each ditch is, or at least the diameter of the outside ditch, also indicate in what order you are numbering the ditches (inside to outside?)
I wonder if the sentence beginning "The camp is one of only..." would be better located in the Description section? In fact the last two paras of the Interpretation of other finds from the Neolithic site probably belong there, as they really aren't about interpretation
I defer to Dudley's greater knowledge, but we currently have "Scheduled monument" in the infobox and "scheduled monument" (in 1923) in the lead, but "scheduled ancient monument" at fn 46, then "scheduled monument" at fn 98. I think it should just be consistent throughout. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
could you add a brief sentence fragment about what the gathering Time project was?
I reworded; you're not the only reviewer to comment on this, so I guess it was unclear. I see the way I had it said the radiocarbon reanalysis project was performed by Gathering Time, as if the project was only one thing Gathering Time did; in fact Gathering Time is the name of the book in which the results of the academic project were published, so it's a convenient shorthand for the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything at FAC seems to be outside my niche these days, so might as well try my hand at this. I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'm mostly reviewing for prose. Feel free to revert my copy-edits. Vanamonde (Talk)23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does "football" need a link in the lead, given the, er, divergent uses of the term?
Does the date on which it received monument status warrant mention in the lead? Without that, the date is only given far down in the body, after the first two allusions to this status.
"The earlier sites were mostly found on chalk uplands" This could be read to mean they date to an earlier time, and I don't think that's the intention?
I'm not an archaeology editor, and am unfamiliar with the conventions, but the last three sentences of "site and interpretation" seem to change the topic quite abruptly.
You're not wrong. These sentences predate my involvement with the article, and I've struggled to figure out the best place to put them. I think they're only marginally notable, though the sentence about the reconstructed face does seem worth keeping. Would it solve things to eliminate the "first scheduled monument in Sussex" sentence and the one about the film installation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty I think all of it is worth keeping...you could make a very short section at the end, something like "protection and presentation", and collect these sentences and others about legal protection there? I don't feel too strongly about it, but would prefer a section to where they currently are, and would prefer keeping them to removing them. Vanamonde (Talk)19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventually the site became legally protected" could we say when?
The sources are not exactly clear about this. Piecing things together, it appears that the 1923 designation as a scheduled monument should have provided legal protection, but this does not appear to have been enforced; Sygrave says in his review something to the effect that the designation didn't prevent development continuing, and Williamson's 1930 paper refers to the site's designation under the Ancient Monuments Act as "a measure which draws attention to the desirability of a protection which it is itself unable to give". By the second excavation it seems the bureaucracy started to work and permission was needed. This is not explicit in the sources, so I don't think there's much that can be added, but how about if I make it "the designation did not yet provide the site with legal protection against development" in the 1929 section? That sidesteps the question of whether the act should have provided protection, because there's no question that practically it did not at that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" a now-superseded classification that attempted to identify individual cultures within the Neolithic which has since been overturned" slightly redundant, it seems to me..
See the explanation I gave Gog, above; unfortunately that's not in the sources. However, since you're the second person to ask, I searched again, and have found a source I can use to define "pulling up" in a footnote, which I hope is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know our conventions around this are sometimes odd, but 'drawn by the Rev. Skinner in 1821" seems to me an unnecessary honorific, as elsewhere where he's mentioned; and even at the first use, I'd prefer something like "John Skinner, vicar of [place]"...
I think I'm left wondering where the project is coming from; is it a non-profit, a university, a corporation, an undergraduate actitivities group? You have explained what they do, but not who they are...Vanamonde (Talk)19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded a bit in response to a similar comment from Peacemaker67, above. I can't find a third-party description of it to use as a source, so I'm stuck with what the book says about itself. The acknowledgements section starts by saying "This project owes its execution and completion to its cofunders, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and English Heritage." So it's a project, and a book. I would guess that it evolved from an idea by the editors, Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss; they probably got a grant and a book contract and away they went. Is there more that could be said here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there's probably not much to be done; you could possibly omit the name entirely, and just refer to it as a 2011 study, titling the section the same way as the others; that way there's fewer questions popping up in a reader's mind. That's a suggestion only, though, I don't have a strong opinion. Vanamonde (Talk)23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A possibly obvious question that may not have an answer; why was the entire site not investigated when the first big digs occurred?
Resources, I'm sure, though there's no statement to that effect. The excavation was done by the local archaeology club, which might actually have been fairly well-funded, but a big dig costs a lot of money and labour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, why was the site not given legal protection earlier?
A brilliant topic! I've really enjoyed reading through Midnightblueowl's articles on similar topics. (Note to directors: I am taking part in the WikiCup.)
I'd recommend against the comma in the first sentence.
This is a bit of a bugbear (as it is for most philosophers) but you use "imply" a lot when, strictly speaking, you mean something like "suggest". I won't insist on anything, though.
File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png This image page is a bit all over the place. If it's PD, it does not need the non-free use rationale, and there needs to be a clear explanation of what makes it PD. If it's non-free, it needs a non-free copyright tag, and it should not have the PD tag. However, if it's non-free, I am going to have object. If this is there as a map of the site, it fails NFCC#1, as we could create (and indeed have) a free plan of the site. (It also possibly fails NFCC#2, but let's not get in to that.) If it's there to show Curwen's map, it does not fail NFCC#1, but it does, I think, fail NFCC#8. (If the image is PD in the UK but not in the United States, then it counts as non-free for our purposes, I believe.)
Re both the above: the creator of both images died in 1938, so they're PD in the UK. They are not PD in the US. I am even worse at image policy than I thought; Nikki patiently helped me with these above, but perhaps I didn't get all the way to the end of the maze. So I would need a FUR to use each of these. The reason to let the reader see them is to get an understanding of the complicated layout of both the site and the excavated area. I was under the impression that tracing a copyrighted map does not produce a free copy, so I don't think it's the case that a free copy that gives the reader the same understanding can be created. If we don't think it's important for the reader to understand reasonably accurately the layout of the ditches and digs, then yes, these have to go, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that tracing a map would not produce a free copy. But you could surely produce your own map, or you could request one at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop (I note that "Technical maps (archaeology, city closeups, etc.)" is something explicitly mentioned on that page as an example of what the Wikipedians there do). In any case, if these images are non-free, I think they're going to have to go. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. I'm not sure what could be done that would be accurate enough to be useful without something equivalent to tracing -- what are you thinking the graphics workshop could do? A freehand copy? I'd be unwilling to use a freehand copy in the article unless I was confident it would not mislead the reader, and I can't imagine that any artist could manage an closely accurate copy purely by eye. Still, if you think there's not enough justification then they need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I've not looked at the other images.)
Lots of proper nouns in the later sections (e.g., para 2 of the 1991–2010 section). Any worth redlinks?
Leaning support. I don't think I would have structured the article like this, but 1) I can't say precisely how I would have formatted it and 2) That's not really the point of review anyway. Great job -- I really enjoyed reading about this! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are linked, but I can see that some of them might benefit from either a footnote in the text or even a parenthetical explanation. I don't want to clog up the text with too many parentheses, though -- the links are intended to help out users in just this way. I'd suggest that RCHME and Beaker don't need more than the existing link, since the former is just an acronym and there's some additional context for the mention of Beaker ware in the article already. I also think "sally port", which is a military term rather than an archaeological one, is a definition that a reader will be able to get very quickly from the link, and "sherd" seems possible to deduce from the context of its first use. I propose to add parenthetical notes for "resistivity survey" and "Bayesian analysis", and footnotes for the barrows and "saddle". Is that enough, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links are okay as they stand, but being objective and applying a (new) common standard across FACs, I'm looking at terms that I personally clicked on to understand. I may not represent the "average reader" as I have post-graduate degrees but it looks like nowadays all such things must be explained in the article one way or another. It may be that the general reader needs even more explanation, or perhaps I know less than the general reader about this topic, but those are the ones I had to click on to fully understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)
TRM, I was about to start on these, but I realized I don't know what you mean by "(new) common standard"; has something changed in the MoS? Or is there some other guideline page that has changed that you're referring to? Is this something I should be familiar with as a reviewer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A level playing field does seem like a reasonable request. Having looked at them all again, I think, unless you feel strongly about it, that the three ones I've addressed are all that need it -- I think the others are inferable from context, as much as is needed for comprehending the sentences they're in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave commments on a previous version, I'm really impressed to see the state of the article now! Just gave it a read through and only have a couple of comments:
references 62 and 63 are currently inside a bracket, should they be outside it?
yeah i think that's prob best. further, now I'm looking at map images in Sygrave (November 2016) maybe the original image is showing the small part that points north in figures 19 and 20 Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"is little more than a track" this is true on the camp side of the hill, but on the other side of the hill Whitehawk Hill Road still exists
in Sources, the Sygrave report (A Report on the Outcomes of the Whitehawk Community Archaeology Project, Including a Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design (Report)) has report twice and should it be enclosed in apostrophes?
The format comes from the {{cite report}} template, so I'm hesitant to change it -- I usually assume those templates comply with whatever the consensus format is supposed to be. The "(Report)" is generated by the template too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i was wondering if it was a template issue, seems like it would be a common "bug" to have report twice but i don't see a way to stop it appearing in the template info. Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
note4 says "The road is named Manor Hill; it was built to connect a housing estate to Freshfield Road nearby" - I'm not seeing something to back that in pages 9-11 of Sygrave (November 2016). Page 17 of the same source says "Manor Hill linked Freshfield Road with the new residential developments on the south eastern flank of Whitehawk Hill and Whitehawk Bottom." The new estates would have been Whitehawk and Manor Farm
On page 11, section 2.2.7, Sygrave says "In 1934 a proposal was put forward to construct a new road to connect the newly built Manor Farm estate with Freshfield Road". I think that's enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The camp is one of only twelve known examples of a causewayed enclosure from the Windmill Hill culture in Britain and one of three known to have existed in the South Downs. It predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years.[98] The camp was the first scheduled monument in Sussex.[98]" - These claims (one of 12, three in south downs, first monument in sussex) might be true but aren't backed by the current source (I think this is an older part of the page). " predates Avebury and Stonehenge by up to 1000 years" feels a bit close to "predate later stone age enclosures like Stonehenge and Avebury by up to 1000 years" Mujinga (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through the history, and the first sentence was in the very first version of the article, unsourced. I've cut it, along with the Stonehenge/Avebury sentence; the dates are given in the article and just because everyone knows about Stonehenge and Avebury I don't think it's necessary to compare every early archaeological site to them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "comments" to "support". Great work on this article Mike Christie, I look forward to seeing it on the mainpage. As a last thing, I enjoyed reading about the "chalk artefact with regular grooves". Imagine if Curwen was right and the ancient denizens of the hill were chess-playing cannibals! Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the most numerous type of tracked armoured vehicle to have been operated by the Australian Army, with more than 800 being delivered. The Army first acquired M113 armoured personnel carriers in 1964, and 200 of the type served successfully in the Vietnam War. They were deployed on several peacekeeping operations during the 1990s and 2000s, but a bungled recent upgrade program has meant that the Army's current fleet of 431 M113s are too obsolete to be used for anything other than training. The article discusses the large number of M113 variants to have been operated by Australia, how they have been used and the process currently underway to replace them.
This has been one of the most complicated articles I've worked on due to combination of a lack of comprehensive sources on the topic and large numbers of specialist works which needed to be consulted. The article was assessed as a GA last December, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Either 817 and 840 M113s were acquired between 1965 and 1979" - think you mean "or" for the first "and"? Also dates don't match article body - please check
@Nikkimaria: Sorry for missing this comment. The 1962 vehicles were a pair of early models purchased for trials. The type entered service in 1964 when the variant Australia ordered started to be delivered. I've tweaked the lead to reflect this. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Small numbers of M113s were deployed to Somalia during 1992 and 1993 " - again, dates don't match body
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
Removed all, except for where this is significant (e.g. that the Army newspaper is an official Department of Defence publication, so not independent) Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Contact a high-quality reliable source? Anzac Steel?
Contact is a professionally edited and published magazine sold in newsagents, etc. Not sure whether Anzac Steel is a RS, but the articles by Paul Handel are given that he's a professionally published expert on the topic (as the author of a work published by the Army tank museum and a supplement to the Army newspaper on the M113) Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 'About us' page [30] states that it's independent, and is edited by someone who was a journalist on official Defence newspapers. The longer version of the statement here says he left the full-time military and set up the magazine in order to be a "pain in the arse" to the military after feeling its official newspapers were being badly managed! He's apparently still a reservist in Army PR. This is a bit eccentric, but I think makes the cut. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hawkeye7
I reviewed and supported this article ant A class and assert that it is FAC standard. Some minor comments to show that I read it:
In Australian service, the M113 has has equipped armoured transport Suggest removing one of the "has".
I like the quote about "no longer fit for purpose in anything but a benign operational environment", which raised the question of what purpose an armoured vehicle serves in a benign environment.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The source doesn't provide any details, but the Army's statement that the M113s can't be sent anywhere where regular combat is expected and the references saying that the type is now used for training says it all. I'd be guessing that M113s would be sent to somewhere like Timor Leste where the threat level is very low, especially to vehicles proof against small arms. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is a fairly strong current of opinion saying that the M113 was never really suitable for high-intensity operations and this was known even in Vietnam, something about that should be in the lead
I haven't seen that in any sources regarding Australia, or the US. Could you suggest some? As the US extensively used the type in its frontline forces in Europe until the 1980s, it was presumably seen to be at least OK. The introduction of IFVs was a big jump in capability though. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Hopkins' views on this - e.g. that the M113-equipped cavalry units were fit for purpose for low intensity conflicts, but not suited for conflicts where they'd be up against medium tanks or heavy anti-tank weapons. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
say that the decision on which vehicle will replace the M113 will be made in 2022, as it currently begs the question what vehicle will be replacing it
generally, interesting that the Army refers to the Vietnam-era basic version as the M113AS1
That is interesting - I hadn't seen this elsewhere. The sources consistently refer to them as M113A1s, with the Australian War Memorial also using this term. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
"In 1958, the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Sir Ragnar Garrett,"
The para beginning "The adoption of" needs some tweaking. AFAIK none of this actually happened, so it just needs to made clear that these were only plans and were based on two divisions. Perhaps also mention that the two APC regiments were CMF units, and as I understand it, "armoured regiments" were tank-heavy (how many were envisioned, two?) Also, can I suggest "The armoured force was to include two APC regiments, the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers and the 8th/13th Victorian Mounted Rifles, both part-time Citizen Military Forces (CMF) units.[4] It was planned that each regiment would include 119 APCs.[5]"
Tweaked. Hopkins says that the two regiments did actually assume APC roles. The armoured regiments were to remain on pretty much their old structure, with three tank squadrons and a scout car troop in the HQ squadron. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also suggest "to equip the Army's armoured units within the [[Royal Australian Armoured Corps]] (RAAC)."
suggest "The American [[Food Machinery Corp]] (FMC) [[M113 armored personnel carrier|M113]], the British [[GKN Sankey]] [[FV432]] and the [[Avro Canada]] [[Bobcat (armoured personnel carrier)|Bobcat]] were considered."
For whatever reason, the literature on armoured vehicles doesn't place much attention on the companies who made them - the designation is usually the only thing used. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "at [[Mount Isa]], and hot and wet conditions at [[Mourilyan, Queensland|Mourilyan]]. The trials began with crew familiarisation and driver training on both types in the [[Innisfail, Queensland|Innisfail]] area. All these locations are in the state of [[Queensland]]."
are both of the trial vehicles still on display at the RAAC Museum?
I haven't seen a source that says (the Museum's website is pretty basic), but the photos on Commons suggest that both were still there over the last decade or so. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delink FMC if earlier suggestion adopted
"At this time, it was planned to retain the M113 in service until 1995."
suggest mentioning 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron when mentioned initial issues in the Purchase and deliveries section
Added a bit about the initial troop later in the article (that they received M113A1s only shortly before departure) later in the article, which I think covers this off? Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be "fitters' vehicles", also "Fitters' vehicle" later
The sources are inconsistent on Fitter's vs Fitters, but Cecil (who is probably the leading expert on the topic and the most prolific author on the topic) uses Fitters, so I've gone with that. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link Combined Arms Training Centre (Australia) for Armoured Centre
4 CAV is before my time, was it organised as a cavalry regiment or an APC one? Suggest specifying, because it is potentially confusing that 3 CAV was an APC regiment
It was a cavalry outfit - added. The organisational structure of the RAAC in the 1970s and 1980s is hard to follow, with few sources seeming to cover the topic, so it's hard to track what units were doing what. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overall, this RAND Corporation report is worth a read, as it has some details about what the troops thought of the M113 in East Timor, and some more details on the strengths and weaknesses of it in general. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"too difficult to deploy" in what respect? Not air-portable?
Too heavy to be carried by C-130s and difficult to deploy via C-17s given they can only transport loads of that weight into major airports - added a clarification. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The FSVs proved unsatisfactory, as they were lightly armoured," do you mean compared to the Cent? Also, did they throw tracks and become bogged more easily due to their extra weight?
Clarified this. The source doesn't say why they threw tracks and became bogged more easily, but I suspect that you're correct. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps "approximately one in seven of the officers and men that served in the squadron between 1966 and 1972."
suggest "other than the tank-equipped armoured regiments" although there were M113s in 1 AR as well, I believe. Perhaps this could be tweaked?
Tweaked along these lines. None of the sources I've seen discuss how many M113s the 1st Armoured Regiment had, but there would have been a few - all in support roles of various types given that the cavalry/APC units handled troop mobility and reconaissance. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
suggest piping the link to Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to "deployments of Australian Army units to Iraq" rather than just "to Iraq"
All done. Despite the unusually large number of comments on one of your articles, they are more MOS etc than substantive re: content. This is an excellent article, which I expect to enthusiastically support once all my comments have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Many thanks for this great review - I really appreciate it. As noted in the nomination statement, this is one of the most complex articles I've developed, so I'm grateful you've gone through it critically. I think that I've now addressed your comments as best I can, noting that due to sourcing limitations I couldn't answer a few questions. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shame there isn't a source on the armour thickness, I believe it ranges from 44 mm on the front to 12 mm, but can't find a reliable source you could use for it. The obvious place would be a Jane's. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a copy of Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985-86 in a second hand bookshop today, and it didn't have armour thickness for any of its entries. I'll keep looking, as this has to be available for such an ancient APC. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Nautilus Institute's coverage of Australian forces deployed abroad, of which this forms part, was coordinated by Richard Tanter who is an academic expert in this field and was written by two researchers: [31]Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the entire website is a RS, but the articles on it by Paul Handel are as he has been professionally published on this topic (a book published by the Royal Australian Armoured Corps Memorial and Army Tank Museum and a four page feature in the Australian Army's newspaper), as well as another work on the history of Australian Army armoured units [32]. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 88 is "Robards, Carrie (14 November 2019). "Programmed for the future" (PDF). Army. p. 2. Retrieved 15 November 2019." but footnote 141 is "Holloway, John (15 June 2017). "Combat brigades embrace changes" (PDF). Army. Department of Defence. p. 11. ISSN 0729-5685. Retrieved 3 January 2019" why the missing Department of Defense? See also 145, 153 and 157... which seem to differ from the others of the same source.
Heh. I was in the middle of the UP of Michigan, in the middle of a forest... I guess I'm lucky I could connect at all while being a passenger in a semi truck ... the wonders of modern technology! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there are a LOT of the sources that trace to the Australian government ... that's a concern about independence. We need to be aware and alert to using so many sources that are governmental without being sure that there aren't counterveiling views outside the governmental sources.
I don't think that I'd agree with that. I've scoured works like Australian National Audit Office reports (the ANAO is independent of government and reports directly to Parliament), parliamentary committee reports, the independent defence media, history books and websites, etc, to ensure balanced coverage and the use of independent sources. For instance, by noting that the upgrade project was a mess which the ANAO, parliament and independent defence media uncovered, and the official history of Australia in the Vietnam War's criticisms of the M113A1 fire support vehicle. Ronald Hopkins' book is a standard history on the subject, and is at times highly critical of government and Army decisions in the era this article covers so while this was published by the Australian Government Publishing Service I think can be regarded as an independent history unless there are critical assessments/reviews. The 'official' Australian Government references are to support uncontroversial facts, and I don't think that they're particularly large in number. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you could provide examples of where you think the sourcing is problematic it would be helpful here (e.g. is your concern with Hopkins? - a Google Books search of Hopkins shows that it's been very widely cited by other historians [33]). Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so much a specific thing or two .. but the fact that so much of the article is based on sources closely connected with the government/army. It makes it more concerning that it may (and I stress may, because I haven't got the sources to investigate deeper) only reflect one side of any issues. I'm leaving it out for other reviewers to look at hoping that they DO have the sources to make sure that proper balance is presented. An analogy would be ... if I was writing about an American Civil War battle and only used sources from southern historical societies. They would likely not be incorrect in the facts but would probably have a set of blinkers that would need to be balanced by other sources. Does that make sense? Because I'm not up on modern Australian military history and writings, I can't begin to say whether or not there IS another side to reflect, but part of a source review is looking at the balance of sourcing and seeing if there MAY be an issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: is their a link for T-50? When I saw the first image I assumed a T-50 tank, which seemed odd.
No, and I don't think that the T50 turret is notable in isolation: most sources discuss it in the context of Australian M113s. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1958, the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Sir Ragnar Garrett, initiated a program to modernise the Army's organisation and equipment so that it was compatible with those of Australia's allies, particularly the United States Army." As it is the start of the stand-alone main article, could 'Australian' be inserted before "Army's"?
"Army's APC, armoured and reconnaissance units". I understand the last two, but what is an APC unit. And were they not alsp intended to equip mechanised infantry units? Ah, explained later. It does leave a reader scratching their head, but I can't think of a good way around it.
I've added a sentence to explain this - APC-equipped units were used to transport infantry as the Army didn't have any mechanised infantry units. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and one of these vehicles in Australia" seems a little wordy. Why not just 'and one in Australia'?
"though the commander lacked armoured protection while using the weapon." Optional: add 'in this way'.
I think that's confusing as these guns were mounted on the roof of the turret and it would be difficult at best to re-install them inside the turret during operations. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was decided that the new AFV would use the turret of a FV101 Scorpion". What gun was this turret equipped with?
"Carries medical equipment and wounded personnel." I know what you mean, but maybe something like 'Carries medical equipment and bays for evacuating wounded personnel'?
"and fewer could be carried on ships." That could be read too ways. I assume that you don't mean that some models could no longer be carried on ships, but I am guessing.
"Each of the cavalry troops was equipped with 12 M113A1s, and was organised into a headquarters with four APCs and three sections each with three APCs." That doesn't add up.
Ditto. The source doesn't say why I'm afraid, and there's nothing in the archives of The Canberra Times in the Trove service (though it looks like this APC was painted with anti-apartheid slogans in 1972 [34]). I'd guess that it was due to sharp edges on the damaged components or similar. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the age of the vehicles and their obsolescent communications and navigation systems proved to be a limitation." This leaves me wanting to know what the limitation was; although I suspect that the sentence needs rephrasing.
Added a bit - lack of GPS stands out. The source goes into this in more detail than casual readers are likely to be interested in. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"manoeuvre support vehicles". What is a manoeuvre support vehicle?
This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, wow that was hard. For someone who knows knew nothing about "tanks", it meant deeper reading than I'd say most anyone else approaching this article would already understand. (And I do also mean the 14-year-old - they would actually know more because they play computer games!) It took me days to read and make my comments. There were only a very few suggestions I was pretty sure about but I decided not make any edits myself. So, sorry it took so long and if I've ruined your weekend with my naivety! Thanks for the education - I'm genuinely glad to have learnt so much. Here goes...
Sir Ragnar Garrett - not knighted til 59 so we still use "Sir"? (I've never been sure the protocol for this eg would we say Sir Winston Churchill attended xyz preschool?)
The trials began with crew familiarisation and driver training on both types in the Innisfail area. Once this was complete, the four vehicles were driven 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) to Mount Isa to conduct hot and dry trials. - mention Innisfail is tropical/wet/coastal (ie v Isa dry)?
This is noted later in the para. The activities at Innisfail at this stage seem to have been essentially preparations rather than the tropical climate part of the trials. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removal of every inspection plate - any wlink for what is an inspection plate?
No, but I've linked to 'Vehicle inspection'. The plates seem to be removable covers which can be used to access otherwise inaccessible mechanical equipment. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - the exact model was a '6V-53 Detroit Diesel engine', which I've added though. It seems our coverage of these engines starts in the 1970s. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
by the Communist forces - wlink or opposition/enemy forces?
We don't seem to have a single article on the various Communist forces of the war, but I've tweaked the text to note that these were the Australian Army's opponents. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Between 500 and 1,000 AFVs were to be procured - I'm confused. APCs and AFVs are not interchangeable terms? They both carry personnel but AFVs have other function/s also?
"Armoured fighting vehicle" is the generic term for armoured vehicles capable of being used in military combat (and is linked early in the article). An APC is a type of AFV which specialises in carrying personnel. I used AFV here per the source - it seems that the Army was interested in a very wide range of vehicles, including APCs, infantry fighting vehicles (essentially better-armed APCs) and armoured reconnaissance vehicles which may not have carried any personnel. If you're confused, take comfort in knowing that the Army was as well - I created an article recently on Project Waler, which was a total fiasco largely as the Army didn't actually know what it was looking for and grossly under-estimated what the vehicles would cost. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a result, the project was cancelled in October 2000 - is that phase 1 or 2 or combined?
I've tried to clarify this - basically Defence decided that the proposal to do both stages of work at the same time was a bad idea, and cancelled work on it. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement - is this worthy of a redlink? Has had so many titles (defence industry, supply, materiel, etc) over the years. Also PSs are now called Assistant Ministers. Yet, I see Greg Combet's article has "appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement" so is it a catchall term no matter the ministry name?
I think that a redlink is justified as it's been a significant position at times (and we have very detailed coverage of other equivalent positions, so it's likely that someone will create an article for this at some stage) Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is because they do not - maybe 'use in combat as they do not provide adequate
The M113s that were not upgraded were disposed of - had not been upgraded
I don't think that's an improvement, largely as the upgraded vehicles were phased into service while the non-upgraded ones were phased out. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
transferred to the Australian War Memorial - for exhibition? (apropos current debate re AWM extensions - 'it's a memorial not a museum, send the big stuff to Mitchell')
As you note, a lot of what the AWM has in its collection isn't on display, so I think that the current wording is safest. The AWM also rotates items on and off display. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Memorial later received a M577A1. - also received?
Sorry, per MOS:LQ. The sentence: "We are using ... understand them really well." is a complete sentence in the source with its own full stop (and cap on We). (I'm not particularly bothered though. Lots of editors, including me, find LQ confusing.) JennyOz (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jenny. I'm going to be travelling for most of the weekend, but will get stuck into these excellent comments when I return. I'm grateful for the time you've taken here. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. The formatting for rows is screwy and doesn't seem necessary given the examples at MOS:DTT (this whole thing has 'I can't believe it's not automated in 2021' vibes about it...). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second-largest (after Coropuna) ice cap that currently exists in the tropics. It lies in a sparsely populated area of the Eastern Cordillera of the Peruvian Andes and like many ice bodies in the tropics it is retreating. It is comparatively well studied, since beginning in the 1970s both its former extent and its present-day ice have been studied. Ice cores taken at Quelccaya have been used to reconstruct past El Niño-Southern Oscillation states and to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon. As a biological curiosity, some birds have been observed to nest on the ice cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Cordillera Vilcanota mountain range is ten kilometres (6.2 mi) northwest of Quelccaya, and is sometimes considered to be part of it – part of what?
The Amazon rainforest-only 40 kilometres (25 mi) away- – we need either en-dashes (–) with spaces before and behind, or the longer em-dashes (—) without space.
It has also been compared to a plateau glacier – not sure if this should be hidden in a footnote. I think it would be helpful to provide a definition of "ice cap" (and maybe what the difference is to a plateau glacier).
Atypical for glaciers, the ice lies on a flat surface rather than on a mountain peak. – I thought it was an ice cap and not a glacier? Again, a bit of background on terminology certainly would help (point above).
Spectacular ice cliffs reaching heights of 50 metres (160 ft) form most of the margin of Quelccaya. – "ice cliffs" link to icefall. Is this correct? They seem to be different things.
On the southern and western sides, parts of the ice cap end at steep cliffs like those in polar regions. – What is the difference to the "spectacular cliffs" that were mentioned earlier?
as indicated by the preservation of plants below it – I was a bit confused by this. Does it mean "plant remains"? Or even "whole plants"? Surely not living ones.
(such as during the early Holocene) and cold-based and thus not very erosive – I would place a comma behind "Holocene)", otherwise it is not clear what belongs to what; I had to read it several times before being able to understand.
The plateau is surrounded by an escarpment and a number of valleys emanate from the plateau. – Not ideal to have "plateau" twice.
these valleys include the Qori Kalis valley northwest of the ice cap, Challpa Cocha valley south of Qori Kalis, Huancané valley south of Challpa Cocha valley and "South Fork" valley south of Huancané valley. – its a bit tedious to read; do we have to repeat each valley twice? Why not simply write something like "The valleys are, from north to south, " and then list them.
The Huancané valley is 0.5 kilometres (0.31 mi) wide and flat and has the "South Fork" valley as a tributary. The Huancané valley runs southwestwards away from Quelccaya and is occupied by the Huancané River – Why is this valley described in greater detail but not the others? This indicates it must be much more important, but I think the reader needs to know why it is more important.
Because there are more sources to it; if my understanding is correct Mercer 1974 & 1977 did their research there and it is frequently used as an example of Holocene glacial history in the Andes. I'd say so in the text if there was a source for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, in this case we need to stick with the least common denominator rather than providing excessive detail to some aspects just because they is some en passant info available in some source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, though. We are describing an ice cap, yes, but also some of the surroundings especially since many references to the ice cap are about the terrain previously covered by it. And I think the article makes it clear that it's not an exhaustive list. Also, since we don't have any information on the valleys east of Quelccaya the "lowest common denominator" would be to remove any discussion of the valleys, but I don't think that works per WP:WIAFA 1b. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clay and peat are also found incorporated in moraines, where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods. – I can't follow. How did the peat become incorporated?
Glaciers eroded it from the ground and it ended up in moraines. Mercer 1977 has on p.603 used the term "bulldozing" to explain the process; would that be clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the part "where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods" is still not clear to me. Floods would quickly erode exposed peat, wouldn't they? Does this part of the sentence just want to inform how the peat in the moraines was discovered? What does it add? Maybe even remove to avoid confusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Annual precipitation at Quelccaya and the neighbouring Cordillera Vilcanota is about 0.8–1.0 metre per year – "annual" and "per year" is redundant.
also generated orographic precipitation, a type of precipitation influenced by orography. – I really appreciate explanations of technical terms, but this one here in the second part of the sentence is not useful. I think it could be more specific, and it should explain "orography" to possibly be of help.
What about "caused by upward movement of air in front of mountains" as explanation? I don't think that a simple explanation of terms for the general reader needs a source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Annually, about 1,150 millimetres (45 in) of snow water equivalent accumulate on Quelccaya, – But the annual precipitation was already mentioned? Seems redundant, although the info is slightly different.
Tough one, precipitation is basically weather while SWE is more glaciology and both values are not necessarily equivalent (e.g wind driven snow transport). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vegetation in the region is known as puna, which is a kind of grassland – I think it is not just one type of grassland, but a set of different ecosystems. Maybe just call it "Puna grassland" to avoid the issue.
and consists of herb – "herbs"?
which is a kind of grassland; – suggest to have a full stop here.
The only human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported. – If so, then "only" is not entirely correct. Maybe some other word, "main" or "mostly"?
There are over fifty plant species. – Still speaking about the "region west of Quelccaya"? How large is this region, how is it defined?
Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area. – As invasive species? If so, it is important to mention. Several species of Tussock grasses or just one?
The source says that there is a shift in vegetation (from Distichia to tussock grass) because of the retreat of ice. Just saying "Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area" is misleading. Furthermore, the source cites this information to another paper: Seimon et al. 2017. Why is this one not incorporated? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other plants include Festuca orthophylla, jarava ichu – Please state what type of plants these are.
and nettles – What do you mean with "nettles"? They are not a natural taxon.
Why do you specifically mention Festuca orthophylla and jarava ichu but not other plants? Are they especially characteristic, or important in some other aspect? If so, the reader should know.
I think the MINCETUR mentions them as characteristic for the area, while the other 47+ species are more of specialist interest. I've put some explanation of type. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wildcat - What do you mean with "wildcat"? The article it links to is certainly not what you mean, since that wildcat does not exist in the Americas?
Sediment cores in lakes and peat, soil formation and cosmogenic isotope dating have been used to infer past states of the ice cap, – Soil formation is a process; how can a process be "used"? Do you just mean "soils", or "paleosoils"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the Quelccaya record has been used to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global event. The Little Ice Age is not considered a global event anymore [36]. Only the last bit shows globally coherent cooling. Very old source (1986)
Changed the tense to make it more clear that it was a past idea. Incidentally, does Neukom et al. 2019 really say that the LIA wasn't a global event? To me it sounds like it's saying that it was not synchronous all around the world (e.g Fig 3e) which is not exactly the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would 'global event' mean then if we're not talking about something that happened globally, but rather normal internal variability? Easily to get lost in semantics here though. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source I can use to say "before the idea of a globe-spanning Little Ice Age was discredited"? Neukom 2019 is advancing a hypothesis, but it does not say whether their conclusions have been accepted by the scientific community. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very sceptical of these old sources denoting cyclicity (f.i. that 14-year cycle). Statistics showing cyclicity were not always properly done in the older day of climate science. If you can't find any modern sources, I'd delete it.
The terminology business-as-usual is considered obsolete; some mitigation policy has been irreversibly implemented (solar prices are not going up again). RCP8.5 is now considered unlikely to happen, and was even at the moment of design when it was a worst case 'business-as-usual, with RCP6.0 the more likely 'business-as-usual'. I now describe RCP8.5 as a very high emission scenario on Wikipedia.
according to Rabatel et al. 2018 once the equilibrium line altitude has reached the top of the ice cap, the entire cap will become a zone of net ice loss. remove according to Rabatel et al. 2018: this is true per the definition of an equilibrium line. Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was wording I added in because I wasn't certain that Rabatel et al. 2018's conclusions were universally agreed upon. I've seen no dissent (except for those due to changing emission scenarios) so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of mid-sentence citations, which impede readability. A few examples (non-exhaustive, please check through-out):
The ice forms a relatively thin and flat structure with two, three or four ice domes, the highest of which reaches 5,645 metres (18,520 ft) elevation. (5 mid-sentence citations). Can you figure out which source is correct? Maybe send an e-mail to the researcher. If not, I'd just go with the most recent, as the ice cap may have lost domes due to melting.
I don't think there is enough information to decide, and since it's mainly the edges of the ice cap that are retreating rather than the full outline changing, I think the discrepancy is more because they are using different definitions of "dome" than because their number has changed. Also, only Mercer appears to base their conclusions on geophysical research, while the others are less clear on how they get their conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The terrain features landforms such as drift deposits, lakes, moraines and moraine-dammed lakes, outwash fans, peat bogs, rocks bearing glacial striations, streams and wetlands. Do none of the sources include multiple landforms?
Dust layers deposited during the dry season allow the determination of yearly layers, which characteristically thin downward. The later detail seems unnecessary (thin downward). Does the middle source not cover the entire sentence?
Two birds, the white-winged diuca finch and the white-fronted ground tyrant are known to nest on the Quelccaya ice cap, are these two middle cites needed?
Semi-colons seem to be overused, leading to very long sentences.
There is however some uncertainty owing to, for example, changes in precipitation, such as a potential future decrease thereof. Can be reworded to have only one example (for example and such as merged), which would also eliminate a mid-sentence cite.
I've dealt with some of the problems and will deal with the semi-colon thing in due course (a bit pressed for time at the moment), but I need some feedback on the readability problem. Removing the mid-sentence citations breaks the text-source integrity and I am not sure if that is a price worth paying for increased readability. Especially since, if someone then contests the rearrangement, it'd be quite difficult to revert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the mid-sentence citations distract quite a bit, especially because this is not what other articles do, and it therefore simply feels unfamiliar. The reader tends to stop at every such citation. I see that there might be some benefit, but I think it is minimal in most cases, especially when the cited information is trivial, for example in "The ice forms a relatively thin[36] and flat structure[28]". It might make sense to use in-sentence citations when sources contradict each other though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how far you can get without having to deal with text-source integrity. There are plenty of examples of very uncontroversial statements that nobody outside the FAC will check. Those not after a comma are especially distracting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, while I have come to appreciate your scrupulous dedication to source-to-text integrity, and desire to keep citations strictly attached to the piece of text being cited, I too agree that many citations could be better grouped after punctuation to aid readability. Doing this might also make it easier to disentangle some long sentences (where I am probably responsible for some of the semi-colon excess, as I try to break up very long sentences without being sure how to best do that without juggling the citations). In terms of meeting verifiability, often when you add citations to one piece of data, you are citing a very specific number, which (unlike paraphrased text) would not be hard to find in sources via a ctrl-f search, so I don't think removing them to a spot where there is punctuation would necessarily impede verifiability. I also recommend in some cases that the concept you are explaining is more significant than the precise number cited, and that in some cases, the numbers themselves can be moved to the end of a sentence by re-casting the sentence. Then the casual reader's eye is triggered to skim/skip the precise detail, rather than having to wade through a lot of numbers. Hope this helps; this problem arises because of your scrupulous attention to integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am convinced now. I've done some of the shuffling but I figure folks may want more. Sometimes I wonder if there is a reference style that lacks these [ and ] tags which double the size of each reference in the written form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review here once I've finished some other reviews I've begun, but in the meantime, I see some duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[37]FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A 1974 map shows a homestead on the Huancané River southwest from Quelccaya, about 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) from the ice margin.[30][31]" I'm not sure what the point of this information is. Is that homestead not there anymore? Wouldn't we know? Makes it seem like some mythological ruin.
But isn't that why such are just put in parenthesis usually? Other notes like "Reaching the bedrock" seem so short that they would be easy to incorporate and fit well into the flow? FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"while drought periods have been linked to cultural changes in the Moche culture and the collapse of Tiwanaku" Changes like what?
The change in question is the transition of the Moche IV culture to the Moche V and a movement north and away from the coasts. Would that work as in-article text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The American paleoclimatologist" Why does American need to be linked?
"may not have occurred at the same time as Lake Tauca existed" Which was when?
"until either 7,000 years ago or between at least 7,000 years ago and about 5,000 years ago, plants grew at its margins,[192][193][174] including cushion mire vegetation." How do we know this?
"Alpine life is quickly advancing into the terrain left by ice,[131] and the retreat has exposed plants that had been overrun during a glacier expansion that occurred 5,000 years ago.[197]" These plants must be dead, no? Hard to figure out since the context is "advancing life".
"The Peruvian Quelccaya (also known as Quenamari) Ice Cap" Wouldn't something like "The Quelccaya Ice Cap (also known as Quenamari) of Peru" flow better as the first sentence? Now the name is disrupted by both being preceded by another word and having a parenthesis in the middle of it.
Perhaps you could even save mentioning the country at the following sentence instead "Located in the Cordillera Oriental section of the Andes mountains".
"The existence of two smaller ice caps south of Quelccaya was reported in 1968" - Do we know how close, or if they're still there? I see it's cited to a 1968 source, so is there anything more recent referring to these?
Doesn't seem like, but the problem is that "Jurocucho" is apparently an uncommon Latinization of a placename and consequently it's hard to search for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know the origin of the names Ouelccaya and Quenamari? What language or culture they originate from, and what they might mean?
"and the ice has a total volume of over 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi)." - Given that the feature is actively shrinking, should this have an as of statement to indicate when this figure is from?
Link directly to Katabatic wind, not just to Katabatic, as katabatic redirects to an article that is mostly about going to the underworld, and not very much about the winds.
"The main human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported" - Consider rephrasing, because livestock grazing can be considered to be an agricultural practice if you're raising livestock, while the phrasing suggests they are two completely different things
"traces of the Suess cycle, a solar cycle," - If "a solar cycle" is being used to gloss what the Suess cycle is, then it'll be wise to find a different way to phrase that, as the use of the serial commas in the list can make it look like those are two different entries. If they really are two different entries, then ignore this comment.
"These lakes could be sources of future glacial lake outburst floods, although the sparse population of the area mitigates against this hazard;" - Surely you mean that the sparse population reduces the damage risk, not the flood risk itself? The current phrasing can be read to mean that the sparse population itself makes a flood more likely, so I'd recommend rephrasing.
How about something along the lines of These lakes could be sources of future glacial lake outburst floods, although the sparse population of the area means that potential damages caused by these floods would be lessened? It's not perfect, but does it sound better to you? Hog FarmBacon22:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support against criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; my review did not check the article against the remaining criteria, as I am not an image expert and do not know enough about this subject to judge comprehensiveness. Hog FarmTalk00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN23: is there a better source for this information?
Nope. This kind of general information can be found on dedicated websites or monographies (as well as in blogs, travel websites etc. but they don't meet the "high quality RS" criteria), but it's too generic for academic publications usually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't think that media are better sources than government websites for this kind of information. Oversimplification, undue focus on minor details and reliance on unreliable information are common problems. I've added that one for that claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN82: where is that title coming from? Also why is this listed as via ResearchGate? Neither link goes to that site
Nikkimaria, are you referring to "Nevado De Quelccaya". Recursos turísticos (in Spanish). Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo, from the Peruvian government Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism? (Hard to tell as footnote numbers have changed, but it is now at footnote # 22). It is used four times:
and the local population considers Quelccaya an important apu, a holy spirit.[22][23] (double cited and not problematic)
Other plants include Festuca orthophylla (a grass), Jarava ichu (Peruvian feathergrass) and nettles.[22] (seems fine)
Among animals are 60 species of birds,[28] mammals in the surrounding region such as Andean foxes, Andean mountain cats, deer, vicuñas and vizcachas,[22][134] (double cited and seems fine)
Atypical for glaciers, the ice lies on a flat surface rather than on a mountain peak.[22]
The first three seem like the kinds of statements that could be sourced to a government ministry, but Jo-Jo Eumerus the fourth is making a statement about the typical characteristics of glaciers, which seems outside of the expertise of a tourism ministry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* (Lead) "The Quelccaya (also known as Quenamari) Ice Cap". Awkward placement of the bracket, which kinda cuts the sentence. Suggest "The Quelccaya Ice Cap (also known as the Quenamari Ice Cap)".
(Lead) "...to a size smaller than today"-- errr. Maybe change "today" with "present day"? Feel free to ignore, but I'm not really a fan of that wording.
(Citations) A lot of citation overkill in this article. Overkill occurs when more than two or three (depending on appropriateness) citations are packed to one. Are the current overkills appropriate? If so, I suggest bundling them, if able.
(Human geography) "The ice cap, which is also known as Quenamari and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya"-- no need for "and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya", as the term 'Quelcaya' has been used several times at the above paragraphs and is not new.
I don't think it needs to be used. It's a subjective term, and we are not an indiscriminate collection of source statements. GeraldWL11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Citations) Okay now I can't handle the citation overkill. Suggest bundling them as I pointed above.
(Geomorphology) "The plateau is surrounded by an escarpment and a number of valleys emanate from the plateau." Repetitive use of plateau here. Suggest changing "the plateau" to "it".
(Geomorphology) "...Huancané valley, and "South Fork" valley." First, I think you should put footnote d next to "Huancané valley" as it talks about that specific valley. Second, why is South Fork in quotations?
Regarding the first, because the footnote is about South Fork. The quote marks are because it's an informal name applied by researchers, not an official place name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Geomorphology) I think to link clay is overlink. I guess. Similar to flood.
Support. Frankly I'm still irritated by the overkill, but it's a nice article nonetheless. You may consider bundling some bundle-able sfns though. GeraldWL12:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would go and support this if the citation bundling is done. Too much citations make the article seem cluttered and untidy. After that is done I'll strike my comments and support this article. GeraldWL06:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis:Gonna be difficult to do that without a change in referencing style, I'm afraid - I can't tell from the help pages how sfn citations could be bunded. I've done some merging of these references which are different page numbers of the same source, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sfn-style citations can be bundled using {{sfnm}}. However, this is not a requirement, and in my view not a matter warranting opposition to promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, This will of course take time, but just take your time. There is no deadline anyway. I'll try help you when I have the time, although it will be hard for me as I'm not a big fan of the source editor. GeraldWL15:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is one instance of five citations for a statement, and three instances of four citations for a statement. This is not screaming WP:CITATION OVERKILL as, for example, seen in this unfortunate FA: Amphetamine#Reference notes. I would not implement bundling for four instances overall in the article, but Jo-Jo, is it possible that all of those citations are not necessary to back those statements? You might doublecheck if any can be dropped. Also, please double check that refs are in ascending order after I fixed a few. The way I scroll through to check for these is to ctrl-f on ][ and scroll to each one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As reported in 1979, 1981 and 2013, there is little energy available at the top of the Quelccaya ice cap as outgoing and incoming radiation are essentially balanced.[44][79][80][81] ... In this case, the four citations clearly refer back to the years referenced in the text, so makes sense, no need for bundling.
Maximum extent occurred either about 20,000 years ago or between 28,000 and 14,000 years ago. The maximum extent occurred during the Weichselian/Wisconsin glaciation and within marine isotope stage 2.[178][179][181][182] ... In this case, moving all the citations to the end of the sentence may have been less than helpful. Something refers to 20,000 years ago, while something else refers to 28,000 to 14,000 years ago. Here, it might make sense to spell it all out in one footnote, which source says what.
Huancane I moraines are less than 1,000 years old and reflect the Little Ice Age extent of the Quelccaya ice cap which at Quelccaya occurred between about 1490 and 1880 and partially also expansions that occurred 1,000, 600, 400 and 200 years ago.[84][90][215][216] ... same for this one ... different sources say different years, and it is not clear which says what, so one note explaining each may be more useful.
Added a note to the instance 2, but I think that moving some of the references back may ease the overkill issue. I've hacked around #3 to split the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've done a spot check on the sources used for climate information. Prose has improved significantly. Still a preference for fewer citations, but it's not a burden for readability any more. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing currently I actually started this article but when I left off it was not much more than a Stub, maybe Start class. Jo-Jo has done wonders here so I will reread this vast improvement and comment in next day or two.--MONGO (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion to Featured Article Having read through the article and found no issues as well as seen that issues mentioned here have been addressed, can see no reason to not support.--MONGO (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this detailed article on an interesting topic.
"There are several camps at Quelccaya". This stood out to me, I wasn't sure if it meant just common campsites or a more permanently staffed base camp type situation.
If there is an adjective sources use, something like established or regular or similar, that would be useful. However if there's not then there's not. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"By tropical standards, Quelccaya is a low-elevation ice cap that rises above the surrounding terrain". I assume that this means that the low elevation and the exposure to the elements are unusual in the tropics. However, the sentence structure isn't that clear. The "by tropical standards" matches the "low" adjective, but the "rises above the surrounding terrain" doesn't fit. The phrasing also makes it sound unusual, but the Rabatel source says it is "representative of many tropical glaciers in the Andes with a relatively low summit elevation".
The surrounding terrain bit is discussed in the Thompson source and implicitly by Rabatel - the glaciers elsewhere in the tropics are more vertical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I wasn't looking for removal, as if it is unusual it would be good to note, but the removal does deal with the source of uncertainty. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Between 1975 and 2010, Quelccaya covered a median area of 50.2 square kilometres (19.4 sq mi). It has decreased over time,[13] and by 2009 it..." It feels odd to just get a median and an (almost) end point with no other information. The source that Rabatel themselves cite [39] provides a loss rate in the abstract of "0.57 ± 0.10 km2 yr−1", and an 1980 size of "63.1 km2". I would suggest using these to frame the decline instead of the median.
Is there a more general figure sources might converge on? Saying "median area" implies to me a process of expansion and shrinking, whereas the sources suggest it has been a reasonably consistent movement in a shrinking direction. CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Temperatures of the glaciers at the base of Quelccaya reach the pressure melting point, except at some locations" seems to be from "Ice core temperature profiles indicate that the modern base of the glacier is at the pressure melting point, allowing for basal sliding, even though interior parts of the ice core are below the pressure melting point (Thompson et al., 2013)" in Malone et al. 2015, p. 113. If so, my reading is that the "some locations" refers only to the interior of ice cores, which presumably aren't at the base of the glaciers. I would thus suggest removing "except at some locations". (Can't in a quick look find the relevant part of Thompson et al., 2013 for more details.)
Not sure how "increased precipitation in the years 1870–1984" and "During recent decades, precipitation has not fluctuated significantly" can both be true. I don't have access to Koci et al. 1985, p. 973., but the abstract only mentions the 1500-1720 wet period.
That's a good question and I suspect what they want to say is that the precipitation changes while measurable do not have much of an impact on the ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest moving the first sentence of vegetation paragraph, "The terrain west...", to the end of the paragraph, as otherwise "region" is ambiguous and shifting it makes a nice larger->smaller progression.
The problem here is that nobody has so far bothered to write or discuss anything about the terrain east of Quelccaya. So I am not sure if they have the same vegetation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"which characteristically thin downward". From source "Note the thinning of the annual layers that occurs with depth. Annual-layer thicknesses (ice equivalent) ranges from 1.2m at the surface to 0.01m at the base", it sounds more like an effect of gravity and time than a characteristic. I would suggest expanding to a full sentence with the 1.2m and 0.01m figures.
I am not so sure that we can put a lot of trust in these figures; they are likely to vary from one layer to another and the thinning is in fact a consequence of gravity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my concern is around "characteristically", which implies something identifiable and notable enough to be mentioned, but if it's just gravity I'd expect it is similar in other ice cores too. CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"one such flood occurred in March 2006 and drowned some alpaca." No concerns, just appreciating the dry bluntness.
Let me know if I've terribly misunderstood something. I made some copyedits while reading through, please feel free to reverse them if they are mistaken. CMD (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_(3).JPG){kind=link}
_(2).JPG){kind=link}
_(10).JPG){kind=link}
