Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2020

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fairly short article is about Nelson Mandela's first wife. I got the Mandela article through the FAC process several years ago and it would be good if this article, currently a GA, could join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complete looking article, though as a proviso to the following comments I know nothing about this lady, and have only a broad familiarity with South African history.

• "Moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse, it was there she met and married Mandela." - bit over-complex (how about something like "She met Mandela after moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse"?)

• My only concern about this change is that it reverses the chronology, which might make things a little less clear for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know when Mase and Mandela first met?

• Unfortunately not, but if said information ever surfaces (perhaps unlikely) then it would certainly make for a worthwhile addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a shame Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The biographer David James Smith later argued that Mandela's presentation here was "not quite the whole story"." - what does Smith say was missing?

• Smith argues that the account Mandela provides in his autobiography overlooks his own adultery at this period by emphasising the idea that his disagreement with his wife was primarily ideological. At present, I've used the Smith quote at the end of this article to help lead onto the next paragraph, which discusses the adultery. I you think it is just causing confusion, however, then it could be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest removing if it's discussed elsewhere, as this is confusing. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "may have been so as not to damage the heroic reputation he had at this time" - bit complex

• I've changed this to "may have been to avoid damaging his heroic reputation." Do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tweaked this Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not fond of describing Mase's life after she and Mandela's wedding ended as merely her "Later life" - it suggests she was defined by who she was married to.

• I can see your point here, but I'm not sure whether any of the obvious alternatives would be preferable. Something like "Life after Mandela" would replicate the same problem. Anyone out there have any suggestions on this count? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a heading like that would be much better - Something like "post-divorce" is another possibility. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go with "post-divorce". Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " Mase travelled there to meet with him, but Mandela refused to see her" - do we know why? Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the source does not state this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts, Nick-D! I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mandela_e_Evelyn_1944.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• Unfortunately, that's not clear. The image appears in various biographies of Mandela, but I do not know what was its first appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so that's a potential problem since the URAA tag partially relies on publication date. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the delay on this. I've done some delving, and I've not been able to find any published version of this image prior to David James Smith's 2011 book Young Mandela. That being the case, I don't think we can continue to use this image under a URAA tag. I've replaced the tags with a non-free tag attached to a slightly different version of the image, which I have uploaded locally at Wikipedia (File:Nelson Mandela and Evelyn Mase.jpg). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nelson_Mandela,_2000_(5).jpg: as per the Flickr tag this should include more specific copyright tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed this image from the template at the bottom of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copyedits; please revert anything you don't agree with.

• She initially filed for divorce, but withdrew this action: "this action" is a bit stilted. I don't know the right legal term, but could this be changed to something like "but later withdrew the petition" or "did not go through with the legal proceedings"? Similarly did not contest this, in the next sentence, isn't as smooth as it could be; how about "In 1958, Mandela, who was hoping to marry Winnie Mandela, obtained an uncontested divorse from Mase"?

• I've gone with "did not go through with the legal proceedings" and have made the latter change that you propose too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• was attended by Mandela, Winnie, and Mandela's third wife, Graça Machel: I can't find it, but I think somewhere in the MoS it's discouraged to speak of women using their first names only, as it can be regarded as demeaning. Could we make this "was attended by Nelson and Winnie Mandela, and..."?

• This is a tricky one; I've changed it to "Winnie Madikizela-Mandela" but that does look a bit clunky and repetitive given that we already give her full name in the paragraph above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• a man with whom he went to school: how about just "schoolmate"?

• I've changed this to "former schoolmate Walter Sisulu". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• they were also related, with their respective mothers being sisters: seems easier to say they were cousins than "related". Perhaps "they were cousins, as their mothers were sisters"?

• That's a definite improvement. I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to avoid having some members of Mase's family starting two consecutive sentences. How about joining them with a comma and making the second one "and some of them"?

• I've merged the two sentences with a semi-colon and start the second part with "moreover, some blamed Winnie". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in good shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to offer these comments, Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes look good. I agree Winnie’s full name looks a little clunky but I don’t see a better solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully drum up some more reviews. It also needs a source review, it appears? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Her father, a mineworker, died when she was a child, leaving his second wife and their six children,[2] three of whom died in infancy.—this is a bit unclear I think because it's trying to sandwich together two different facts. I assume not all the children died after Evelyn was born and after the father. Might want to split up the details about them having six kids, three of whom died, and then explain the father died when she was a child.

• I've now split this up into multiple sentences along the lines you recommend. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1939, Evelyn joined her brother and Sisulu in Johannesburg. I don't think you need the "in Johannesburg" bit since the previous paragraph ended explaining that.

• A fair point. I've removed "in Johannesburg" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother. What was her mother's wish? That she be a nurse, or that she work at the non-European hospital?

• To be a nurse, I believe. I shall make this clearer in the text by changing the sentence to the following: "She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother that she would enter that profession." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When the Sisulus moved to a larger house at 7372 Orlando West—It's kind of weird you give the address the people who are not the subject of the biography moved to, but we have no idea where the house that is relevant was. The new address makes much more sense in the following sentence; alternatively, I don't see why it's really necessary to mention they gave the house to Sam when it's not relevant to the following passages.

• I don't think that the address house which Sam Mase took over is actually known publicly; if it were, it would definitely be worth including it. I agree with your point that the second address, 7372 Orlando West, is better mentioned in the second sentence than the first here, so have moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, David! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be a shame to lose the only image of the article subject, but we need publishing info for File:Mandela e Evelyn 1944.jpg to verify it is in fact PD, and right now it's missing that.
• Sources look okay. I did a NYPL and Google Books search for the subject and found some more recent scholarship, but it appeared much of them relied on sources presented in this article, so I don't think there's much evidence anything is missing. I did a spot-check to statements attributed to current refs 2, 11, 18, 34, 45, 51, 72, 75, 76, and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or inaccuracies; I don't have access to the print sources used besides Meredith and Sampson but don't see any issues with what I can. I would say it would be preferable to split references in some cases to make it clearer which source exactly is covering what part of the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Midnightblueowl, where are we at now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only thing we have to sort out is where the lede image was first published. I'm having a bit of trouble with that and wondering if the image should be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a verifiable free image, I would definitely swap it. Otherwise, you can just remove this one and work on finding one without the deadline of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a verifiable free image so I've added a local version of the same image with a non-free tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale could use some elaboration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on it, adding additional detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale looks much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking at the article my first thought was that a lot of it is based on Mandela's autobiography, a primary source. I'm happy to give a full review, but first I'd like hear your thoughts on this. According to WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I'm concerned that the extent of the reliance might be too great.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the article does cite Mandela's autobiography 34 times, but in 26 of those instances it is used alongside other, secondary sources. Of those seven instances where Mandela's autobiography is the only citation, four are used to cite direct quotations from Mandela. In the three other examples, Mandela's autobiography is specifying particular facts that I don't think are contentious. In addition, it might be worth noting that we also use Mandela's autobiography as a source in the Nelson Mandela article, which has been FA-rated for several years now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one of the sentences that relies solely on Mandela's autobiography, which takes the overall total down to six. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases where it's used alongside other sources, are those sources sufficient to verify the claims made? Eg if you removed the bio (which, to be clear, I'm not requesting), would all of that material still be appropriately cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Let me double check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked and yes, everything that appeared in Mandela's autobiography was also in other cited sources in this instance. The only issue I encountered was the statement that Mase came from a Xhosa family; it is implied by both Mandela's autobiography and other sources but is not stated explicitly, so I have removed this statement from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mandela's autobiography is a very prominent book, it will have received a lot of attention from his biographers (many of whose bios of Mandela are prominent in their own right), historians, people who knew the couple and other relevant experts. Unless they've raised concerns with the relevant material or the book more broadly, this should be an OK source if used carefully, which seems to have been the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe a month has gone by since I last stopped by here. There's been some further commentary but not consensus to promote. I can wait another 24 hours or so to see if David and Carabinieri are satisfied the criteria are met but after that we'll have to call it a day for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We now have three statements in support of promotion; let's just see what Carabinieri thinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri seems to have been editing sporadically the past few weeks; given all the responses to those concerns I feel comfortable enough to promote, subject to my own once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odaenathus king of Palmyra is a much celebrated figure in Roman history, credited with saving the Empire from the Persian monarch Shapur I. Sadly, we do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him than others. Some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article traces every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted as such more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by a member of the copy-edit guild to guarantee its reading quality. This is the second attempt after the first one few months ago failed to attract more than one reviewer.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have a better portrait for the lead image.
• "he defeated the Sasanian emperor of Persia Shapur I". Persia Shapur I is MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
• "besieged him in his capital Ctesiphon in 263". If you mention the siege, you should say what the result was.
• The account of Odaenathus's life in the first paragraph is brief and unsatisfactory. I suggest that it would be better to provide a summary of the lead to Odaenathus for the portrait article.
• "which is fitting of Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "which fits Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle".
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Dudley. The portrait is an issue as most portraits do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which was the reason I wrote this article to clarify the matter. Therefore, the portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae (though tessera is a piece of mosaic, academics use the designation Palmyrene tessera to indicate a clay engraved token that allowed entry to temple feasts and important celebrations and occasions). The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos (which is counterproductive tbh). I have dealt with your other comments, and expanded the overview section to be a short summary of his life.

• "presided over Palmyra's apogee". This is unreferenced and controversial. Most historians would say that the apogee was under Zenobia.

changed

• "Mosaic panels found in Palmyra might have a depiction of Odaenathus" I am not clear what the purpose is of this sentence. They might have a depiction of anyone.

re-worded

• "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and became the ruler "ras" of Palmyra in the 240s." This is vague. What does "ras" mean? Was he appointed "ras" by the Roman emperor?

clarified

• "After a successful campaign in 263, where Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon,[5] and resulted in the eviction of the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered,[6] he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler." This is ungrammatical and clumsy. Maybe "In 263 Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon[5] and evicted the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered.[6] In the same year he assumed the title of King of Kings and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler."

done

• The more I read of this article the more doubtful I am that Wikipedia is the right place for it. It is too technical for a general readership, and it is very unlikely that specialists will come across it. Have you tried submitting it to a scholarly journal? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While not the easiest read, it is still a very descriptive article that does not satisfy the criteria of scholarly journals. I did not introduce any new insights, just provided what scholars had to say. Technical articles still belong to Wikipedia, but we need to make them easy to understand as much as possible without jeopardizing the quality and knowledge value of them, which is something I hope I managed to do.

• "photos of it survive". I think you should say "photographs".

Done

• "Alexander the Great of Macedon". I do not think you need "of Macedon".

Done

• "This tessera is at the museum in Damascus". Should be "This tessera is in National Museum of Damascus. Similarly the next two tesserae should be described as "in Damascus Museum".

Done

• "on macroscopic observations". What does this mean?

I added a wikilink. The guy counted on his eyesight to determine its marble

• At the start of the article "the king of Palmyra from 260 to 267". This should be 260 to 267 CE (or AD). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• Support. Looks fine now. You might try submitting the article to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [3]. This accepts submission of Wikipedia articles and publishes them after peer review by experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for your support, and for the suggestion.

• So now that image we found on Flickr has finally come to good use! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FunkMonk! Yes, that photo opened the door for this article, was a very nice find

• Link names of places and people in captions?
• Mention museums in all captions for artifacts?
• There are some duplinks.

Done- Gallienus is linked in the overview section, and in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, there is another link to that page when I mention the Gallienic model. I dont think many readers will understand what its meant with the Gallienic model if I dont link it to Gallienus because we have no page on the Gallienic style of portraits

Link Palmyrene kingdom, Vaballathus, Herodianus, Hairan, and Heracles too in captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and was elected as "ras" (lord) of Palmyra by the city's council in the 240s." Quite a few names and term here that are not linked at first mention in the article body. I wonder if ras should link to anyone, would Rais be misleading?

As far as I read, no scholar compared it with the Arabic rais. It is translated as lord, and for me this indicates some kind of monarchical power (specially that Odaenathus was gifted a throne when he was ras by a city notable. Today in Arabic you can use rais to indicate a captain of a ship, so Im not sure its wise to link ras to rais

• "As a Roman city on the borders with Persia, Palmyra was affected by the constant war between the two empires,[3] which culminated in 260 with the defeat and capture of the Roman emperor Valerian by the Persian Sasanian emperor Shapur I" Here Roman is only linked at second mention, and could Shapur I be linked?

Done

• "assumed the title of King of Kings" King of Kings also has an article, wonder if it is relevant.

linked

• "Germanic raiders" Link?

Done

• "A few small clay tesserae" Link term?

We have no article for Palmyrene tesserae which are banquets tokens (invitation cards) and not the same as a mosaic tessera

• It seems most of the intro is a repeat of the overview section, more so than a summary about the subject itself, which are the portraits? I wonder if it could be more balanced?

Intro expanded and re-written

• "Depicting a "strong, severe personality"" According to who? Such direct quotes should probably get in text attribution.

Deleted

• "and the Istanbul specimen is 40 centimetres" Isn't specimen more properly used for biological examples?

changed

• "Ingholt concluded that the heads should be dated to 250, and represent Odaenathus I" Represented?

Done

• Any info on where and when the Copenhagen and Istanbul heads were found?

Sadly no. Ingholt does not know, and it is probably that this will never be known as they were excavated before the age of academic archaeology when documenting the provenance of finds was not of importance

• "Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis by its head of antiquities, Khaled al-As'ad" Dates?

Done

• Having read a few of the first examples, it is unclear to me when and by who each was claimed to depict Odaenathus, maybe it could be stated clearer for each of them?

Here is a problem as I start with explaining about the piece and how it was found before mentioing which shcolars identified it with Odaenathus. It is clear however in each section, though normally at the end of it

• It is also a bit difficult to figure out where to look for when these claims were doubted, and where one overall section begins and ends. Maybe this would become clearer if you could make more top level sections so that for example limestone portraits are broken more clearly away from Marble portraits with a line, so that the conclusion section is more easily seen as belonging within the former section? Then also the Tesserae portraits could begin after a line as their own section, etc.? In that regard, the "Portraits" top level section is perhaps redundant, since the article is already called Portraits of Odaenathus?

Done

• "drawing on exclusively on macroscopic" First on is unnecessary.

Done

• "found a material indicating the presence" Not sure if the a is necessary.

Deleted

• "Mosaic of the tiger hunt" You put this title in italics and with capitals in the article body, shouldn't it be in the caption too?

Done

• "the tigers are Panthera tigris virgata and were once common in the region" maybe ", which were once common"?

Done

• Yu link Hellenistic at the last instead of first mention.

fixed

• "he most likely portraits are two marble heads depicting a man in a royal diadem, and an eastern royal tiara, in addition to Palmyrene tesserae of a bearded king wearing a diadem." I think this could maybe also be made clearer in their individual sections?

re-worded

• Support - nice to see an article from you strictly about art also! I think the new section layout makes the article much easier to navigate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I am seeing sandwiching in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" (see MOS:IMAGELOC). buidhe 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Damascus and Palmyra museums is a short section and thats the problem as its photos will push into the next one. If I dont sandwich, the photos of the Limestone sculptures section will push to the marble section, and so I believe that this single case of sandwiching is justified.

I fixed the sandwiching myself, as long as the issue does not reoccur, the image review can be considered passed. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a source review and I'm going to add this to the urgents list for another comprehensive review. Also @Buidhe: over the image concerns, are you satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a surprising number of faulty hyphens to WP:ENDASHes ... there may be more. External images belong in external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the hyphens. As for the external images, I disagree. They do not belong in external links, they are not an extra thing a reader can look at, but essential for the article. If they belong in the external links, then why does the Template:External media exist?. Those images are very important for understanding what the article is talking about as I describe the features of each portrait which will require the reader to open the link and see the image. Putting these images in the external links will reduce the possibility that a reader will see them or understand fully what is being explained in the text

Oppose, external links do not belong in articles. WP:LAYOUT, sections which contain material outside Wikipedia (including "Further reading" and "External links") should come after sections that contain Wikipedia material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the template external media exist? As I explained, these materials are essential for each section and the good delivery of information is more important. Anyway, external media is exempted from the rules regarding external links, rendering your argument for oppose invalid. You can find this mentioned in note 2 in the Wikipedia:External links, which states: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2]"- these exceptions are clarified as: "Other exceptions include use of templates like external media, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict after you signed post) Could you please sign your posts? Otherwise, when the Coords read through the FAC, it is difficult to know who said what.

Thanks for the explanation on the external images, as I see you discuss each case in text and are subject to the exemption accordingly. There has been a serious problem in medical content with the use of external media in articles in inappropriate ways, and my concern was that we not set up a precedent. I have struck my oppose for this instance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I normally do not sign because I use the colour Green for my comments. I shall be more careful next time.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no prob :) So now that you understand my concern about precedents, let's look at each image separately.

• Why is the image of B2727/9127 needed? It isn't specifically discussed in text, and it's not clear (to me) that it differs significantly from the Wikipedia Commons image of B2726.

I mention that there was 3 identical heads found. Providing and image of B2727/9127 will help the readers to compare and see the similarities--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is not discussed and the template is ruining the layot as it is pushing the template of the Benaki portrait down, I moved this to external links.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably the Benaki Museum portrait is the 36361 mentioned in text? Can that info be added to the external image?

Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we need five external images from the l'Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient  ?

The website does not gather the five images of the portrait (which is lost, and only these photos of it exist) in one place. The readers, if they open image 1 from the external media, will see a frontal photo, but will not easily find the remaining photos, which are important since the features of the portrait from all angles are explained in the section. For example, on top of the portrait there is a hole that was used to attach a crown (a tiara probably) to the turban, and for that you need to check photo 5.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that he ruled with imperial consent

All information are cited. For example, the imperial consent part: "Odaenathus was made the effective ruler of the Roman East by Gallienus, the son and successor of Valerian, who appointed Odaenathus a Corrector totius orientis (righter of the entire East)"

• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?

Chronologically- No idea why I have so many mistakes now. Fixed

• Butcher 1996: why not cite this to the book itself, rather than a book review?

Its Butcher's commentary that is cited and not the book he is reviewing

• de Blois: can you verify that the given series name is correct?

According to worldcat: The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus

• Fortin: is the given publisher for the original or the translation?

The translation, as it is the work cited

• Double-check that all non-English publications include language

Done. The article Varia Tadmorea (1976) by Ingholt is in English despite the French title of the whole work

• Kollwitz includes a location but most other sources don't

Fixed

• What makes Michałowski a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimierz Michałowski is a reputed scholar and head of the Polish excavation team in Palmyra (was). The work cited is the archaeological report of that year. Any academic work about Palmyra have to use what Michałowski wrote

• Starting to read through. Looks good at first glance. I did a hyphen run but they seem to have been fixed. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A stronger image at the top would be good.

Thanks for your comments Johnbod. Sadly, most portraits which we have a good image for here on Wikipedia do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which the article clarify. The photos of portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae. The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos.

• The "Overview" is rather repetitious of the lead.

At first the lead was much shorter, but I had to expand during the review. This led to the overview section being similar to the first paragraph of the lead, but it is much more detailed

• Pretty unclear: "The theory about Odaenathus I's existence was abandoned in 1985, when an inscription was published by the archaeologist Michael Gawlikowski which demonstrated that Odaenathus I was identical to King Odaenathus.[32]

Clarified

The archaeologist Klaus Parlasca rejected Ingholt's hypothesis, and considered the two heads fragments of a funeral kline (sarcophagus lid)." - Which bits of "Ingholt's hypothesis" - the dating or the subject?

the function- I calrified it

• Read down to the marbles. More later. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you want to add anything else, Johnbod? We really need to wrap this on up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, yes. You seem to have enough supports, and I was heading that way, so please don't wait for me, Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

Thanks for taking the time Mike

• Several limestone head portraits from Palmyra were identified by several twentieth-century scholars as depicting Odaenathus, based on several criteria, such as the size of the portrait and the presence of a wreath. The latter element, however, was not special in Palmyrene portraits, as priests were also depicted with wreaths. Further research on the limestone portraits indicates that these pieces were funerary objects depicting private citizens. This is from the lead. I think it could be improved as a summary of the "Limestone sculptures" section of the article: it only summarizes the first two sections.

Im sorry but I could not figure out how to improve it as I tried to make it comprehensively covering the limestone section in total so I did not mention individual pieces. Can you maybe give me some clues on how it can be improved?

It says "these pieces were funerary objects", but that has not been asserted for 36361 or C1519, has it? That's the only point that bothered me. In fact, now I look again, you never say C1519 was considered by anyone to be a portrait of Odaenathus -- am I missing where you say it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, C1519 is the Damascus portrait, so Kollwitz proposed its Odaenathus. It is the Palmyra piece (Inv. B 2186-CD 134,62) that was not identified by anyone, but Equini Schneider consider both portraits the result of the same workshop and modelled on the Gallinic model. I guess I can move the info about B 2186-CD 134,62 to a note? As for 36361, my answer is below

If Schneider thought that C1519 and B 2186-CD 134,62 were both products of the same workshop, did they also express an opinion as to whether they were individual portraits or just both taken from the same model? C1519 obviously has to be included, but I want to understand a little better how the sources get us to B 2186-CD 134,62 being considered a possible portrait of Odaenathus. I can see that if B 2186-CD 134,62 is considered to be of the same person that C1519 depicts, then Parlasca's opinion can be applied to both heads, but I don't yet see where B 2186-CD 134,62 gets into the picture. If Schneider thinks they just from the same standard model, why would we conclude they are the same person? And if we can use Schneider's opinion in this way, I'd mention it in the body of the article, not just in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider spoke of how similar C1519 and B 2186 are, and how they were apparently made by the same workshop based on the same artistic model. She did not conclude that they represent the same person. Maybe I should have left B 2186 out. The thing to do now is deciding whether to delete the sentences about B 2186 or put them in a note to clarify that C1519 have a sibling (kind of)

Based on what you've told me the sources say, I think B 2186 should be left out, though you could put in a note from C1519 saying that B 2186 is a similar head, thought by Schneider to be from the same workshop. Without an explicit opinion either that it is a portrait of Odaenathus or that it and C1519 are the same person, I think including it as a candidate portrait is a step too far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Moved to a note and the section adjusted to be about the Damascus portrait

• A separate point about this paragraph: you present the refutation of the arguments that these portraits were of Odaenathus as definitive, but I know that academic arguments are not easily killed. Are the refutations cited considered by scholars to be definitive? Or are they merely the most recent published arguments? E.g. Kollwitz and Parlasca disagree on one of the sculpted heads; are we sure Parlasca's opinion is accepted? If not, I think we should be less definite in the language -- e.g. "More recent research" and "these pieces were probably..." and so on. And there's no counter-argument given for the image in the Benaki museum.

Re-worded. No other scholar I know about touched on Vlizos' hypothesis regarding the Benaki's portrait. However, since Vlizos himself referred to the Copenhagen portrait and concluded that it is very similar to the Benaki one, then the criticism of the Copenhagen piece goes for the Benaki one

OK on the rewording. So the argument against the Benaki portrait is that Vlizos, who suggests it's a portrait of Odaenathus or someone in his family, mentions the resemblance to the Copenhagen portrait, but that portrait is thought by scholars to be funerary and not of Odaenathus, hence nor is the Benaki portrait? I can see this is a plausible argument but I think we can't put this in the article without a source; it would be synthesis. But that leaves the Benaki portrait without an explicit refutation. Could we get around this by pointing out that Vlizos made the case for the Benaki portrait at a time when the Copenhagen portrait was still thought to be of Odaenathus (assuming that's the case, as it seems it must be)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we have a synthesis for the Benaki piece. Vlizos made his argument in 2001 based solely on the similarity with the Copenhagen piece which was attributed to Odaenathus family by Ingholt in 1976. Parlasca already made the argument for a funerary function in 1985. Since then, Balty, Equini Schneider (1992), and Gawlikowski disagreed with identifying these limestone portraits with Odaenathus, and these are the "big names", i.e. experts in Palmyrene sculptures. So when Vlizos made his arguments, the doubts about the Copenhagen portrait were already there. Gawlikowski, knowing that many such oversized limestone heads with thick necks are around, wrote that they, including these at Istanbul and Copenhagen, were connected to funeral practices such as sarcophagus lids. Therefore, while no direct refutation was aimed at the Benaki portrait, it was subsumed under the category of sarcophagus lids' heads by Gawlikowski. I cant see a synthesis here because the Benaki portrait is not mentioned in the conclusion section, but the general judgement of Gawlikowski regarding this type of portraits is. So whether there is, or there isnt, a direct refutation of the Benaki portrait is irrelevant, because Gawlikowski made a general judgement based on certain features, applying to any portrait that bear those features, which is what is mentioned in the conclusion section

OK, that seems reasonable, but is the Benaki head thought to be part of a sarcophagus lid then? I don't see any reference to the characteristics Gawlikowski mentions, such as a thick neck. I agree if we make that connection we have enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about the neck and the back of the portrait. You can see a photo of the neck here, page 212

That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd retitle the "Overview" section "Background" -- it's not an overview of the article; it's background information for understanding the article.

Done

• I think it's best to avoid "noted" or "noting" when giving archaeologists' opinions; to note something implies that it is unquestionably true, not an opinion. The article uses "note" in several places; some are clearly factual, but a few seem to be opinions:
  • Müller, noting the Copenhagen head's moving posture...
  • Frederik Poulsen noted that the wreath on the Copenhagen head is reminiscent of...
  • Gawlikowski suggested that the heads depicted three men from the same family, and noted that their excavation from a tomb, and their remarkable resemblance to the portraits in Copenhagen and Istanbul, confirm that the latter two were also funerary, and not honorary, objects
  • The authors of the RTP noted a beard -- the next sentence says Gawlikowski disputed that there was a beard, so this is definitely an opinion
  • Gawlikowski considered it likely that the portrait depicts Odaenathus, noting that the lack of a tiara (which made Balty hesitatant in his identification as Odaenathus) is offset by the royal diadem
  • Gawlikowski disagreed, noting that the face is youthful

Done for all above

• The sculpture has a minimum of individuality with the lack of articulation in the modelling of the face, the expressive vacuity of the eyes, and the rigid, stylized treatment of the facial hair. What follows "with" uses "the" for the three characteristics listed, which sounds wrong because these characteristics have not been previously mentioned. Suggest "The sculpture has a minimum of individuality: the modelling of the face lacks articulation, the eyes are expressionless, and the facial hair is rigid and stylized".

Done

• Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model, which (given the massive, square skull) may have been the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait; the model was modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture I don't understand this. Why does a massive square skull imply that Gallienus was the model? And it took me a minute to work out what was meant by "Gallienic model"; it might be better to rephrase to say "Gallienus" specifically.

Gallienus always appeared with a massive square skull (and there was no unified model for Roman royal portraits as was the case in, for example, Egypt, so a single emperor can create a new model), so maybe Gallienus was the model for the Palmyrene piece- I rephrased the sentence

I think I follow you, but I think it could be a little clearer. How about "Both portraits are influenced by a standard artistic model. The massive square skull is similar to the model used for Emperor Gallienus' portraits, so Gallienus' model may have been modified to incorporate features typical of Palmyrene portraiture." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re-worded

• The layout of the images on the right edge is quite confusing. B2726/9163 is positioned in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, so it was a while till I noticed that it's actually from the hexagonal tomb. I amended the caption to make that unambiguous, but you could also move the "External image" templates to the left of each paragraph, which would make it easier to keep the images with the sections they relate to.

Im also unhappy with this, and it wasnt the case, but the photos had to be moved to the right during this FAC because sometimes Wikipedia is a backward bureaucracy that follows rules (in this case: no sandwiching of text between images) literally, on the account of good delivery of information and its clarity. Thats why I cant place the templates on the left

A pity there's no better layout, but striking since this does seem to be the best we can do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume no pictures of C1519 or B 459/1662 are available? Or of the Panel of Bellerophon?

The Panel of Bellerophon exist online, but the link will not take you to the required page and you need to scroll down. Here is the Bellerophon- page 1298. As for C1519 and B 459/1662, I have scans of them from academic books, but I cant upload them because of copyrights. They are not available online

• Acquired by the Xydi family in 1989, it was moved to the museum a decade later. The head was acquired commercially and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known: unless the Xydi family is notable in some way, I'd suggest "The head was acquired commercially in 1989, and no information about its exact excavation location in Syria is known; it was moved to the museum a decade later."

Changed

• How was the tiara portrait lost? I think this article should give the fate of the piece if it can be sourced.

No one knows. Despite the excavations in the 1940s, the results were published only in 2005. I think the confusion of WW2 is to blame. For now, we only have those photos, but the piece might show up one day, no one knows

Struck, since it's accurate as it stands, but if any details are known (e.g. when it was realized that it was lost) that would be worth putting in a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• another headdress piece that slipped under the turban's rim: I don't know what "slipped under the turban's rim" means.

The rim surrounded the tiara and constituted an elevated border of it. This photo might help imagining how it would have looked (it depicts the portrait from above where the rim of the turban can be seen elevated from the surface of the head where the tiara originally rested

I think "another headdress piece that would have been framed by the turban's elevated rim" would be clearer, if I understand what you're saying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

changed

• The major reference for Palmyrene tesserae is the Recueil des Tessères de Palmyre (RTP): the source you give for this is fine, but I'd suggest also citing the RTP itself at this point, since a curious reader may want to look for that source.

  Did you miss this one? Just a suggestion but I think it would help the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it yes. I added a citation

• similar in style to the portrait of Herodianus on the lead token: is Herodianus' token in the RTP? If so I'd give the RTP number here.

It is not considered a tessera and is not included in the RTP

• Suggest saying "Caspian tiger", which seems to be an uncontroversial name, rather than Panthera tigris virgata; in addition to being easier for a reader to understand, it appears that the separation of the species is debatable so the scientific name may not last.

Done

• Is there a transcription for the full inscription on the Tiger Hunt mosaic?

dydṭs ' bd // psps d'hw // wbnwhy MR- Transation: Diodotos made this floor, him and his sons MR. Source page 1300

How about putting this in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note added

• Several of the citations appear to be to chapters in books, but don't have page numbers for the chapters. I don't think it's compulsory but it's certainly a convenience for the reader, so you might consider adding them. The ones I see are:
  • al-As'ad, Khaled (2002).
  • al-As'ad, Khaled; Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise; Yon, Jean-Baptiste (2005).
  • Balty, Jean Charles (2005).
  • Charles-Gaffiot, Jacques; Lavagne, Henri; Hofman, Jean-Marc, eds. (2001).
  • Ingholt, Harald (1976).
  • Parlasca, Klaus (1989).
  • Sartre, Maurice (2005).

Done for above

Most of the above are fairly minor points and I think can be easily addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck several points above; will look at the rest in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the remaining points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All points resolved. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike for this thorough review. It helped improving the quality of the article greatly--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure to read! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [4].

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this one really is a good 'un. Outside of the ultimate classic (I may be biased), this play-off final is stuff of legend. It has been called possibly the most exciting match ever played at the old Wembley. Three apiece after regulation time, 4–4 after extra time and then penalties. I had the luxury of watching this all unfold in a pub near Loughborough (nothing better to do with myself at that time), and I remember it almost like it was yesterday. I will work tirelessly to address any constructive comments, and as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The sequence of scoring in the lead could be greatly simplified and in so doing allow a reader who doesn't recognise the names to follow the flow of the scoring. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well sure, what's your suggestion as it reads fine to me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe remove the player names... with 8 goals to describe, there's an argument for it being excessive detail. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well only five different ones, and certainly not excessive to mention Mendonca (for example). The lead in this article can be quite sizeable. I've added a couple shout-outs to club names to help readers follow the flow. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How about some basic info about the Mexico match that was missed (friendly, presumably?) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dweller I've only gone and done it! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my tweaking and am good with whatever you and Lee decide below. This is an admirable article, easily FA quality. Support. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good, I only have nitpicks.

• Curbishley's assistant Les Reed left the club after the penalty shootout loss. - Win?

  Gah, yes, done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We have Mendonca saying sorry to his mates in Sunderland before we learn he is from Sunderland. This could be rejigged.

  Re-ordered. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The background section does a good job, but perhaps could mention expectations at the start of the season.

  I'll see what I can find. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This gives a bit of a preview of the season. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Harrias lovely, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Harrias (or anyone) any idea how to fix the Gale URL so it doesn't upset the {{cite web}} template? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that better? Harrias ^talk 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ·Maybe a brief mention of style or tactics. Its the Football League in the 90s so maybe 4-4-2 isn't unusual enough for sources to note, but for instance Peter Reid sides were noted for knocking it long, usually onto the head of Niall Quinn. Related to this, the formation diagram is unsourced. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll see what I can find. The 4-4-2 formations are sourced by the "Charlton scoop the jackpot" reference, not sure how you would like that presented? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Oldelpaso, addressed the easy ones, got to find a way of looking into the other two, may be (much) more difficult. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso I've added some season preview comments which Harrias kindly helped with, and some of the nuggets from Reid's autobio which you helped me with (thanks!) I've struggled on the "style"/"tactics" query, predominantly because although you're bang on about the lump it to Quinn while Phillips sniffed around for scraps, that isn't really covered in any of the contemporary reports. If you have anything pertinent and referencerable then I'd be happy to add it. Also, I'd be a touch reluctant to add that for just one of the two sides, i.e. what was Curbishley's 1998 Charlton team playing like?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fair point. Curbishley was at Charlton for many years but beyond cliched stuff about being well organised I can't find much about their style in that period. I'd view it as a nice to have, not an essential. Like you say, doing it for one team not the other would be lopsided. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso what do you reckon then, anything else, I think I've covered the above now? I liked the quote from The Times reporter saying Curbs wouldn't amount to 'owt... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything covered, all good as far as I'm concerned. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• while the teams placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; - considering it doesn't go anywhere, can we just say that they took part in "a playoff tournament". The fact that they started at the semi-finals isn't that important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't recall a single time when this was referred to as a "play-off tournament", it's universally referred to as the "play-offs" and more specifically "play-off semi-finals". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The clubs won their semi-finals and competed for the final place in the Premier League's 1998–99 season. - this seems a litle bit redundant. We've already mentioned what the winner gets. Perhaps mention who defeated who in the semi-final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to get into too much detail on the losers of semi-finals when this article is about the final itself. I've reworded a bit around the repeat mentions of promotion to the PL. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Winning the game was estimated to be worth between five and ten million pounds - not sure if this is a MOS:CURRENCY issue, but maybe £5-£10 million instead to avoid the lbs vs £ issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dweller changed this, perhaps you can duke it out with him. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• twenty minutes remaining - 20 minutes? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily, MOSNUM is fine with "twenty". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a link for extra time? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak strike - "weak" has a few connotations, is there a better word to describe it for the lede to suggest it's not very powerful? - not a major point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it was weak in every suitable sense. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1998 play-off final is considered one of the most memorable and dramatic games played at Wembley. - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it's expanded upon in the main body (as it should be) but I've added some more words to the lead. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We're bolding the teams in the table, is it worth specifically mentioning this is why they were bolded? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's self-explanatory, it's the two clubs involved in the final. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Valley" is mentioned twice, maybe it's worth explicitly stating that it's Charlton's home ground, rather than simply linking? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final - probably don't need to use the full name. Could just mention that they won the play-off final in 1987, then known as the Second Division. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a problem here, it's explicit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The match was broadcast live in the UK on Sky Sports. - any idea of international broadcasting? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea. I found nothing on that during my extensive searching. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we link extra time in the body as well?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done per above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• history of the play-offs - perhaps we should define this as "the play-offs in English football", as I'm sure this has happened in other play-offs in other countries/sports Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)][reply]

  I think it's clear in the context of this article that mentions of the play-offs relate only to the play-offs of English football. I'm not sure reiterating that for the final sentence of the article is particularly helpful. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's my lot on the first pass.

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've addressed and/or responded to each of your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, TRM. I have a few points. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "with what the BBC described as" maybe link BBC?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nationwide League Player of the Year" I understand Nationwide sponsored the FL, but isn't it better/clearer to say "First Division Player of the Year" (or was he Football League POTY)?

  Yes, good point, we usually (correctly) drop these sponsorship terms in any case, so I've done that. It was for the "Nationwide League" so second to fourth tiers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Better to link 1996–97 FA Premier League in "a failure to score towards the end of the previous season" than in "first time of asking, having been relegated in the previous season".

  Indeed, the downside of writing the article in bits-and-bobs and forgetting which linkable item came first! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allan Johnston is overlinked in "to convert Alan Johnston's cross to score Sunderland's fifth", plus Alan > Allan.

  Removed overlink and removed first name altogether as it's nugatory after his first full mention. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Sudden death (sport) in "and take the shootout to sudden death".

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe mention that Les Reed left Charlton to rejoin the Football Association (FA) in "Curbishley's assistant Les Reed...".

  Nice point, added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2014, the English Football League listed it first" better to drop "English" as the competition was simply known as "Football League" in 2014.

  Interesting point. The website this is referenced by has "EFL" logo so that's why I used the phrase. What do you think?

  I would still put it as "FL" because the prose of the ref doesn't mention "EFL". It's certainly no biggie to me so it's up to you (of course). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WA8MTWAYC thanks so much for your comments, much appreciated. I've addressed them and/or responded to them above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good job, TRM. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link hat-trick in the lead.
• "Charlton Athletic faced Ipswich Town in their play-off semi-finals", is there a need to reuse Athletic here? Both the mentions before and after this have dropped it.
• "Dr Martens League", sponsored names should be avoided in favour of the competition's official name.
• "went over the Charlton's crossbar", either the or Charlton's is wrong here
• "In the 23rd Charlton", is minute missing here?
• Quinn claimed that despite the loss, his team were the best footballing side in this division", there's an opening quotation mark missing from here somewhere.
• "Miles Kent writing for the Bleacher Report in 2008 calling it", the double -ing here doesn't seem to work. Should it be called instead? The same with describing immediately after, should this be described?

Kosack thanks, I've addressed all your comments, without fail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work TRM, a good read. The reviews above have ironed out much of any potential issues, a few minor things I noted are listed above. Kosack (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In progress. Harrias ^talk 14:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and consistency

• Some BBC sources list the publisher as BBC Sport, others as BBC News: be consistent.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #21 "Kinsella's Wembley gamble" is missing an access date.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #22, "Kirk, Liam (25 May 1998)" needs to be marked as subscription access and via the BNA.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)

• Ref #28, "Varley, Nick (27 May 1998)" is missing an access date.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)

• Ref #29, "Haylett, Trevor (26 May 1998)" needs to be marked as via Newspapers.com.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!)

• Ref #39, "Zola reveals World Cup agony" lists a location, but no other newspaper source does?

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #50, "Kent, Miles (14 October 2008)", Bleacher Report should be a work, not a publisher.

  The target article has an italic title but is exclusively non-italicised throughout the body. I'll go for italics here, but the inconsistency needs addressing so this stops getting brought up. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #51, "Top 100: the complete list" needs the dates tidying. It looks like "27 November 2009" should be the publishing date, and 8 October 2013 should be the archive date.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and coverage

• All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.

  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do wonder at the lack of inclusion of written histories of the clubs: Ramzan, David C. (2014). Charlton Athletic: A History. Amberley. ISBN 978-1445616575. and Collins, Mick (2002). The Rise & Rise Of Charlton Athletic: From Portakabins To Porto Captains. Mainstream. ISBN 978-1840186956. might be worth a look.

  If I was writing the history of the club, I'd agree, the coverage of this specific singular football match is extensive here already. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've bought them both so I can also become a CAFC expert too. One is coming tomorrow, the other second hand from Amazon will take a week or so. Hopefully that won't hold up this source review, you can AGF that I'll include anything of relevance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Harrias Ramzan arrived half an hour ago so all three pages (£4 per page!) which cover the final have now been included. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Might be useful for 1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final too, then it might only be £3 per page! In seriousness, it looks good at a glance, but I'll have a proper look through in a bit. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I did check that before I bought it last night actually, so you're right, it might serve two for the price of one! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's enough from me for the moment. I have to prepare myself to see if United can avoid losing to Leicester. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 if you get a chance. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, etc. Harrias ^talk 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias cheers, all addressed. That GAN is still waiting for you to return by the way! Enjoy the football. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns have been resolved, this passes the source review. Harrias ^talk 07:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I think this is "oven ready" now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: five supports, and image+source review passed? Time for the next one... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, might not get to this today but feel free to start a new one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collins, Mick (2003) generates an ISBN error -- not holding up promotion because I have seen instances of false positives with this but perhaps you can check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [5].

---

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several articles on Strepsirrhini primates that are at featured status, but this would be the first simian one. I brought this article to GA status back in 2012 and in the past couple months have done more editing and cleaning and got a copyedit. I think its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing the above. Will take another look soon with a more refreshed eye. CMD (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. Looking at Primate, which is an older FA but still quite a decent article, there are several facts about orangutans mentioned there that are not included here. These include endocranial volume, an explicit note on climbing technique ("quadramanous climbing" although a less jargony explanation would be better), fishing and tool-assisted fishing (there are better sources than the one in the Primate article), a tad more on legal status, and a figure for extirpation rate in Sumatra. I believe all these would fit into the article, and they suggest further possible inclusions, such as historical population estimates (eg.). I would also suggest an explicit mention of only 3-4 births in a lifetime for each female.

Added more. I don't see the need for historical ranges and expiration rates. Those are more appropriate for the individual species and we already have the Endangerment of orangutans article. LittleJerry (talk)

The current "Interactions with humans" section is more about cultural significance than an overview of current interactions. Papers like this one are interesting in that regard. There also seems to be a minimal amount of information about cultural significance and opinions in the local area as opposed to globally. I'd also advocate the inclusion of some contextualisation about the local pressure for development, which is crucial to understanding orangutan conservation, rather than attributing it all to international demand. The only mention of local attitudes is a short brush into folklore, whereas they're often seen as obstacles to the economic advancement of those in poverty. These attitudes feed into the hunting, pet trade, and sometimes even indifference or distrust towards conservation.

Added more on local killing of orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include information about domestic legal protection. (In Malaysia I know orangutans were supposedly covered under a 1972 wildlife protection act but looking now I can't find them in the actual law. They are however included in the replacement 2010 law (pg 101) as a totally protected species, as well as under the separate laws of Sarawak and Sabah.) CMD (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That again seems more important for the article on the Bornean orangutan. There are three species, and looking at the different laws that protect each of them is too much for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the species/sub-species argument with regards to the scientific name etymology information, but disagree it applies to much of the information here. The species split is for many purposes a technicality, and a recent technicality at that. Most of the laws I mentioned are older than the split between the species. Local communities are not distinguishing between species, conservation material doesn't distinguish between species, and I doubt many people in the wider world will either. Are there any examples of protections/treatment/etc. differing by species? Outside of scientific fields such as taxonomy and evolutionary implications, I can't see how what makes this article comprehensive will have shifted significantly since pre-2001. Taking your work on Wolf for example, that's an article that exceeds wp:size guidelines, yet it wouldn't greatly benefit from being stripped of most of its Status and Conservation section if at some point various subspecies became reclassified as species. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an experienced FAC source reviewer, the general quality here is high (aside from perhaps dictionaries in etymology but they seem quite relevant to the section). The Pikiran Rakyat source should be reformatted to show it is a news source, with the name of the paper rather than the url. Nomoremonkeybusiness.com is a campaign source, appropriate for the information but could probably be buttressed by another source. Riskanalys av glas is dead and lacks an access date. It is citing something which could very easily be replaced by a higher quality source. Gill, Victoria needs an accessdate. The Nyaru Menteng source may one as well. National Geographic is formatted in a variety of ways. I can see some causes for differences (eg. magazine vs website), but not to the degree shown in the article. Similarly Mongabay and Eco-Business should use the names not the urls.

While here Bornean Orangutan in nest, Orangutanspeech.webm, and Orangutan using precision grip need alttext. CMD (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to add an accessdate to the Nyaru Menteng source. Otherwise, fixed all the others. LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic Society" should be consistently (un)linked and consistently (un)italicised. The Oxford Dictionaries link is a redirect and the source needs reformatting. The etymonline.com source should also have its publisher fixed. CMD (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Range map should be scaled up and should include sourcing
• File:Daniel_Urrabieta_y_Vierge_-_The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag

• When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added.LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The_Female_Orang_-_Utan.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When and where were these first published? And the last is still missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png isn't used in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a tag to the last image. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a tag stating the image was published before 1925. You haven't indicated when and where this was first published to qualify for that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done where? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, someone changed the template image back. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From the lead: Flanged (the distinctive cheek pads) adult males make long calls that attract females and intimidate rivals: the gloss disrupts reading quite a bit (the "the" is without reference) and not really comprehensible. In the "Characteristics" section "cheek pads" are not mentioned but "cheek flaps", is this the same (if so, please clarify or better use a single term consequently). But for this sentence, would "Flanged (with distinctive cheek pads) adult males …" work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• that Bontius' account referred not to apes (which were not known from Java) – Java wasn't mentioned before, so is here something missing or what does it mean?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The was renamed Simia pygmaeus in 1760 by his student Christian Emmanuel Hopp and given the name Pongo was by Lacépède in 1799 – Here are at least two grammatical issues.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Israfil et al – dot missing (et al.), but why not "and colleagues" to avoid the term altogether?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• However a 2017 found – "study"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption: Adult male (left) and female – Since the differences between species were just discussed: Which species is this?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• a male orangutan having arm span – "an" arm span?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endocranial – link?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption: The orangutan's skeleton is well adapted for its arboreal lifestyle – Male or female? Important to mention since some sexual dimorphic characters just discussed can be seen here (sagittal crest; canines)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The joint and tendon arrangement in the orangutans' hands produces two adaptations significant for arboreal locomotion. – Is this the introduction for the following sentences? That is not totally clear. Also, the reference to the arboreal locomotion is already there in the previous sentence. The sentence does not really tell us anything? I would suggest to just remove it, it only leads to confusion.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• not true knuckle-walkers; which involves – the ";" feels incorrect here; maybe insert "a form of locomotion"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Life history – this section title does not work because "life history" has a much more narrow meaning in biology: The set of stages that an organism, or a species, experiences over its lifetime, from conception to death (from Wiktionary); it is therefore identical with "Reproduction and growth".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• During reading I felt that the first two paragraphs of the "Social life" section are a bit hard to follow as a common thread is sometimes not evident; there are different pieces of information somehow attached to each other and the logical succession of information could be improved. Particularly, I suggest to move the sentence Bornean orangutans are generally more solitary, moving and foraging alone while Sumatran orangutans travel in groups more often down to the place where travelling in groups is actually discussed.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• interberth interval – birth?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Scientists hope the data they collect will help researchers – this sounds as if "scientists" and "researchers" would be two different instances (I would remove both to be honest). This whole sentence does not tell us anything new about the apes themselves; hard to believe that there are not at least some opinions on their socialising patterns?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and preference was given to oral tool use – does this mean they put the sticks into their mouth to probe for insects rather than with their hands? Hard to believe.

That's what the research has shown. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• evidence of sophisticated tool manufacture – this is not explained and the reader if left wondering: How do they manufacture tools? For the reader this is difficult to guess. The material is wood I assume? They do not use tools to make tools or do they? Why is it "sophisticated"? Needs more explanation.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible linguistic capabilities – This whole section is solely about history of research: who did what and when. There is nothing about the actual scientific findings on this topic. If it is unclear if they have linguistic capabilities we at least need to hear the scientific opinions on this question. I think this section is the weakest of the article.

Removed. This is controversial and disputed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• simians – not explained or linked.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Orangutans that have loss their homes – lost?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It works to bring different stakeholders together to achieve conservation of the species and its habitat. – a bit awkward to speak in presence here, since this is subjective and predictive; uncontroversial statements can only be made about the past. What about "It proved to be efficient to bring …"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks for this important article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis and Jens Lallensack, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the intro, main ape line is a duplink of great apes.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You use the same photo of a male Tapanuli orangutan twice in succssion, a bit repetitive, nothing else that could be used for variation at one occurence?

Its easier to use this one. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Under etymology, it could probably be more interesting to show a realy early illustration, do we know which is the first published?

Replacing old illustrations is too much of a headache. Especially since many don't come with dates. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have this one published by Linnaeus himself in 1763, which was not categorised properly (the last one is the organgutan):[6] FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this image[7] published by George Edwards in 1758.[8] That also seems to be an early English use of the name "man of the woods", which would fit neatly with the text under etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Man of the Woods" LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the image with the books[9] is problematic due to copyright of the book covers. But since Nikkimaria didn't bring it up, maybe it falls under de minimis.

• That would be my interpretation, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxobox image is very unsharp, and the individual's head is in an angle that makes it hard to see the face. Any better photos to use?

No. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Researching the man of the woods image, I also found this book[10], which states early scientists thought the sexes and growth stages were different species, which should definitely be looked into for the taxonomy section.

Added elsewhere. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that the many other reviews seem to be done, the text appears to b stable, so I'll continue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "that his use of the word was misunderstood by Nicolaes Tulp, who was the first to use the term in a publication" When?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace published his account The Malay Archipelago: The Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise, in 1869" I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey in its context? If it is not the first mention in English, it seems kind of arbitrary and unnecessarily long.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lacépède used the term" You could give a longer version of his name (such as comte de Lacépède) as you do with other authors.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "of Linnaeus as Simia satyrus" Likewise, full name for Linnaeus.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " in the Systema Natura" Link it, and perhaps add "the work" or similar, now you just assume the reader knows what it is.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent in whether you give nationality and occupation for the people mentioned throughout.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pongo borneo" This name is not mentioned in the article body, and you don't explain how it arrived at Pongo pygmaeus.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The genetics info seems arbitrarily divided between taxonomy and genetics. Why is it not in the same section, or in succession? Now it is divided by the fossil section.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The white space created by the long image under fossil record looks very intrusive. Maybe use another image, or is an image even needed there?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the names of the different orangutan species at first mention in the article body and captions.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Sumatran orangutan genome was sequenced in January 2011" and "Israfil and colleagues (2011)" Why do some studies get authorship and others don't?

This insist unusual in FAs.

Hmmm, in my experience it is mainly because it has been overlooked (nominators usually fix it when notified), it looks more professional when it is consistent.

Well they are both 2011 studies so I had to distinguish them. LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The cladogram could contain links.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxonomy section looks better merged, I wonder if the skull photo should be right aligned so it doesn't clash with the header and image below it?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Orangutans' potential predators" A bit awkward, how about "potential predators of orangutans"?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Their hair seems unusually long compared to other apes (you only say coarse), mention?

I haven't read that. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ficus fruits fit both preferences" Maybe just say figs?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "which contains the toxic alkaloid strychnine" So does this mean it does not harm them?

I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "which involves consuming soil and other earth substances." Why?

It don't say but it usually helps with digestion. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You have three very similar close ups of flanged males, but none show the throat pouch, which is notably absent from any photos. How about showing that structure too under Reproduction and development instead of the current male photo (which even crops the cheeks)? Here are some other photos:[11][12]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "climax with pulses and end with bubbles" I have no idea how to imagine these, any descriptions of the sounds?

Not given in source. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "An orangutan at the San Diego Zoo using a tool" Add "to extract juice"? I thought it was insects from just looking at the photo.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was founded by Birutė Galdikas" Since she was already introduced, only needs last name.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In November 2017" Month unnecessary. Only stated in intro anyway.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "younger males do not and resemble adult females" Only stated in intro.

They resemble them because they don't have the flanges. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "instead of the brown or black hair typical of chimpanzees and gorillas" Only stated in into, not sure it is necessary.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead, the intro could devote more words to physical features, not only their red hair and flanges is mentioned, but their long arms etc. are also notable.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "including the largest known primate, Gigantopithecus blacki." Not sure if this is necessary for the intro here, the subject is the genus, not the subfamily. It would be more relevant to devote the space to something about their own discovery, etymology, etc.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "considered to be critically endangered" To be is unnecessary.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice article and quick responses, which is lucky since I'm going away on vacation tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a good shape, thank you for your work. Some comments and suggestions:

• The locals originally used the name to refer to actual forest-dwelling people, while the ape was called mawas. The locals of where? The Malay-speaking world is quite large, and Sumatra and Borneo—where the orangutans live—are two different islands

It doesn't say, but it should be obvious that "local" means near the orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but is it in Sumatra or Borneo? HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is called "Malay words and Malay things" so I would say it's safe to assume it's in Malay, and glosbe.com and google translate confirm this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dunkleosteus77 that is not a safe assumption, Malay served as a lingua franca over a vast area for a significant amount of time, and there was significant local variation. A word from 1700 could come from anywhere. Even today both countries have a form of Malay as their official language. CMD (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This recent paper indicates mawas (sometimes maias) is used throughout their range. This source clearly evidences the term was in use in Sumatra in the 1960s. CMD (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source says that Malay-speaking people only used mawas or maias before the mid 19th century, and I don't get how the 2nd source is relevant to anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question is which locals originally used to refer to orangutans as mawas. Does the first source not provide a potential answer to this? The second source I mostly included as an instance where mawas was used in English in a reflection of local use. CMD (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got confused, I thought you were talking about the word mawas instead of orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chipmunkdavis's first link above is a really good find. Especially, the discussion in page 2 about how "orang utan" was first attested in Malay nnly to refer to a western word, and not as an indigenous name. I've always assumed that it was an indigenous name (after all, it is the current name in Malaysia and Indonesia, and "orang" and "hutan" clearly have Malay etymologies). Because we're discussing etymologies anyway, I think it is important that this is included in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this. I requested a copy. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48 done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added this, which was what I was trying to suggest, would appreciate your opinion LittleJerry and Chipmunkdavis on whether this is significant and appropriate. HaEr48 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think may may have to avoid this since other sources state that "orangutan" was used by the people to refer to actual forest-dwelling humans. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I don't think that's contrary to the fact that the word (referring to the animal) is borrowed from Western languages? HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not contrary. "Orang" is still part of current terms for indigenous people. CMD (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its fine then. HaEr48 can you finish the review? LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• published his account of Malaysia's wildlife: the Malay Archipelago's wildlife? The subject of the study appears to be the archipelago, which is much bigger than Malaysia; also, only a tiny part of the orangutan's range is in Malaysia.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• consisting of teeth ascribed to P. weidenreichi: P. weidenreichi has not been introduced.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Israfil and colleagues (2011) estimated that the Sumatran and Borean species diverged 2.9 to 4.9 mya: can we say what type of studies/evidence is used in this study? As opposed to the genome study mentioned in the next sentence. Same with the 2017 study.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• males develop a large sagittal crest and large cheek flaps: mentioned that the flaps are the same as the "flanges"? This is the first mention in the body

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to add an arrow/circle to an image showing in order to show precisely which is the flange? Even with the flanged : unflanged comparison it is not obvious to me.

No. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Seems it will be useful for illustration, and needs only minimal effort. HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by adding in an arrow. I can't just upload an image with an arrow on it. I don't see how one can't notice the cheek flaps. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flange is just the oversized cheeks which make the face look like a giant circle, as opposed to unflanged individual whose faces aren't that wide   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and secondary old growth forest: The article on old-growth forest says it is also called "primary forest", while there is also a secondary forest article which seems opposed to it – can you clarify or link which one is meant by "secondary old growth forest"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the climber species: Link "climber"?

Done. LittleJerry (talk)

• Adult males dominate sub-adult males: In what sense do they get dominated? Is there a good link?

Done. LittleJerry (talk)

• Females do most of the caring and socialising of the young: Is it possible to explain how the young gets "socialised"?

It already talks about "buddy travel". LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nesting: Does the nest get constructed each day/night, or does it last for a long time?

Each day/night. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonnie, an orangutan at the National Zoo: Maybe mention which country's National Zoo this is?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Argentina ruled that an orangutan: a court in Argentina? Or, could the court be named?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Status and threats. In the table, suggest adding "Malaysia" next to Sabah and Sarawak, and Indonesia next to East, Central, and West Kalimantan, so that readers know the relative distribution between these two countries.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I intend to claim this review for WikiCup.HaEr48 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work, and my feedback has been addressed. HaEr48 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Claiming for Wikicup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "the main ape line" seems to imply that orangutans aren't really apes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "P. abelii was placed under P. pygmaeus in 1985 as a subspecies" who did this and why?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this review of Gigantopithecus literature, it is not reported from India and dates back to only 2 mya extending to 300 kya. I think the source is referring to Indopithecus which was split off. Gigantopithecus is also only confidently known from China, with potential occurrences in Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia (the Indonesian one doesn't seem to have gotten much attention) but these could possibly belong to Pongo. So if you're gonna include Vietnam, you might as say the other 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the dates written backwards?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• scientific names in the refs need to be italicized   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wanna include [13] where they date the Ponginae/Homininae split to 26–17.7 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That complicates things since the 2011 study also finds the split between GAs and gibbons at 24.1 and 19.7 mya. The two different splits overlap some anyway.LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wanna check if "As in all Old World Primates, orangutan hands are similar to those of humans" should actually exclude New World Primates or if it should be switched to just "primates"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The way you juxtaposed it, you seem to suggest that humans have a drastically short thumb and have equally curved phalanges as orangutans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you mention the use of Commelina as a balm, you should also include this talking about the use of Dracaena as a topical   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't just keep adding everything. This page is not a dumping ground. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just arbitrarily mention 1 plant and on top of that present it as if it's the only plant orangutans are documented to use, especially if the total number of plants is 2, and all you have to do is change "plants of the genus Commelina" → "plants of the genus Commelina as well as Dracaena cantleyi"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this, "Orangutans have the most prolonged nursing period of any mammal, with the cessation of suckling (weaning) estimated to occur at 6 to 8 years of age in the wild."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weaning is already mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article says they're weaned at 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of homosexual behavior?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial. That has been recorded in a ton of species and has its own article. Someone else can add it if they wish but I don't see why it would be important for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you severely underestimate how well known homesexual activity in animals is among the general population   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I don't see the need to mention it. There's already an article on the subject. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know anything about when/how long they're awake?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are active at day and sleep at night. Its not that complicated. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Experiments have also suggested that orangutans can communicate about things that are not present, mother orangutans remain silent in the presence of a perceived threat but produce an alarm call to their offspring when the threat is out of sight." I'm not really getting the significance to intelligence. Don't a lot of animals have an all clear signal when the predator leaves? Also, why would the mother make an all clear signal to the offspring? Is the offspring hiding somewhere?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The offspring is with them. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the offspring is with her, why would she be producing an alarm call? Why is she signaling danger after the danger is already gone?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it will associate what they saw with danger. And it isn't a all-clear call. Its a delayed alarm call. LittleJerry (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good clarifying information to put down that it's for teaching purposes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the image caption in Tool use and culture, instead of drawing attention to the precision grip, you should draw attention to tool use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "orangutans in Suaq Balimbing (Pongo abelii)" it'd be easier if you said "Sumatran orangutans in Suaq Balimbing" or "orangutans in Suaq Balimbing, Sumatra"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• were the tool-kit tools sticks and stones?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you should specifically state that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're any natural material they could find. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaves? bones? sticky sap? roots? pits?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• what is oral tool use?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tools use with the mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "an experimental study of captive orangutans (P. pygmaeus)" → "of captive Bornean orangutans"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "They found each orangutan population behaved differently" by "behaved" to you mean "vocalised"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then what specifically were the cultural differences?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "to recognise the rights of some non-human primates" more specific to say "great apes"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Instead of "hominids" you should say "great apes"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You should mention Camp Leakey and Leakey's Angels are named after Louis Leakey   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should say that Galdikas was funded by Leakey so Camp Leakey isn't just hanging there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "or (in the case of P. tapanuliensis) a more recent, report" recent is a relative term. You should use specific years if you're really trying to emphasize the difference in publication times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you mention Indopithecus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know of it, but I don't see the need to keep mentioning different genera.

You mention every other pongine except Indopithecus so I don't really see the reason to exclude this in particular when you've included all the others   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have mentioned the ones mentioned in my book. So its not arbitrary. Ankarapithecus is another member of Pongine. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankarapithecus is problematic and is also argued to be a dryopithecine here. Since your book gave Gigantopithecus evolving 5 mya instead of 2 mya, I'm guessing your book including Indopithecus with Gigantopithecus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you present something in a listing format as you did here, what you're telling the reader (whether you like it or not) is that this is a complete list and there are no other pongines, and considering this is such an easy fix I don't understand why you're blocking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because having to dig up a source that mentions its date range and location is an unneeded effort. Especially if you have no access. I don't see the need to have to dig up a source on Indopithecus when it is not the subject of the article. You can add it if you wish. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you vehemently refuse simple and unobtrusive comments that take 5 minutes of googling. I wasn't asking you to add an entire section, just a single part of a sentence. Anyways, I've added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We have different ideas on what's unnecessary and what's not. Other reviewers, what do you think about the inclusion of zoopharmacognosy, Indopithecus, and homosexual behavior?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tag them; FunkMonk, HaEr48. LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject matter to have a strong opinion on any of these, but if as Dunkleosteus77 said there are only two plants with that purpose, I think it makes sense to include both rather than arbitrarily including one. HaEr48 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm actually reading the source, it specifically says "This plant [Dracaena cantleyi] was previously misidentified as Commelina sp. in 2008" and the 2008 source is the one used in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added then. The other two to me are tedious demands. You can add them yourself if you wish but can we please move on from them? LittleJerry (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if we present a list of something (extinct relatives or plants), we should either make them very short and general, or make them complete, instead of arbitrarily missing the mark by one taxon or so. As for homosexuality, since it is a very notable subject when it comes to for example bonobos, I wonder why it shouldn't be included here too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I included the ones listed in my book. And not all apes display homosexual behavior as extensively as bonobos. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think there's a little bit more to add on sexual behavior. You've underscored how high forced copulation rates in orangutans are compared to most other mammals, and you don't have much of anything on female sexual behavior (this article talks a lot about female choice)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned female choice "While both strategies can be successful, females prefer to mate with flanged males and seek their company for protection. However, in some areas females prefer unflanged males during times of instability and do not resist copulations.". LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should specify that "While both strategies can be successful" this is for males, and that not resisting during times of instability (as well as after conception) is a paternity confusion behavior as an infanticide avoidance strategy, that it's suggested that females use facultative association to reduce the risk of contraception with an unflanged male, and that females can attempt to resist forced copulation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Females will mate with unflanged males outside of ovulation" it's probably more accurate to say "will not resist copulation"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 everything else has been added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? HaEr48? Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a source review? If not, please add it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth what kind of review? Chipmunkdavis looked at source formating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, but I think a full confirmation is best left to an experienced FA hand. CMD (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to look at every source, just some random ones that you can access. Like two or three. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, a good source review looks at the reliability of all the sources, not just "some random ones" or "two or three". --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it got confused with a spot-check, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth if its not a spotcheck then CMD already did a review of both formatting and source quality. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think given Chipmunkdavis' statement above that it might be best if there was a second look at the quality of sources and an evaluation of them against the FA criteria. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria could you do a source reliability check? LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN1 is misformatted. Ditto FN2, FN6. FNs 11 through 13 can be models for what these should look like.

• Dictionaries are works and should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't italicize them. LittleJerry (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can, you'd just need to use a different parameter for them other than |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
• Fn20: date doesn't match source
• How does FN42 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• FN46: why not cite the original study?

• [14] CMD (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine removed. LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent whether you format PLOS vs PLoS
• FN70 should use work title USA Today and not the current |publisher=

• Again, work title not publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A work title is a title of a larger publication like a newspaper or magazine. It's coded in the template using one of several available parameters, such as |website= or |newspaper=, which result in it being displayed italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FN95 should use publisher CNN.
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• FN99 is missing website
• Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case

• Not fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FN103 should use publisher PETA
• FN104: The Telegraph is a work title. Ditto The Week, check for others

• Not fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean with these. What is "work title". LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FN118 appears to be a children's book - why is this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth? LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get Nikkimaria to agree that the changes resolve their concerns. I can't know if they are or not until they weigh in. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria only responds when something isn't fixed. That they haven't replied means that everything's fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying: FN77 has an error in the author list, FN124 and 132 are still missing italics on website. Otherwise fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2020 [15].

---

Nominator(s): NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, who is often erroneously thought of as an "overnight success" or "one-hit wonder". This article dispels these myths and depicts the long journey Trainor had to fame, including three independently released albums, a family band and writing for countless other artists. Special thanks to Ian Rose who waived off the usual two-week wait time for renomination, Buidhe who provided source and image reviews, and finally to Gerda Arendt and Calidum who have indicated their willingness to potentially comment on this FAC. This will be the last FAC for this article, regardless of the outcome. Once again, thank you to everyone mentioned. I will be happy to review other FACs should their nominators do the same here and ask for it.--NØ 05:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per my previous image review. I do have a FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Partisan Congress riots/archive1 and would always appreciate feedback. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's always best to attribute an opinion to who said it. For example, "were accused of anti-feminism" (by whom)?, "a critic (who?) stated", "drew criticism and was labeled as "sexist" and "anti-feminist"" (by whom?) etc.

• Done for the first two. Though the criticism for the "Dear Future Husband" video was widespread, and as such cannot be attributed to one or two critics, so I've opted for "online critics". Both the refs used say something to that effect.

• "Trainor has also been criticized for using a "blaccent" and African-American English." Again, attribute this to who made the criticism. Also, what is a "blaccent"? Neologisms should either not be used, or if necessary, explain briefly what they mean. In this case, it seems to be that she uses an African-American accent without being African American, which could be explained more clearly.

• Done! Perhaps just saying African-American followed by the word "accent" will get the point across.

• I'll have more to say later... (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I eagerly await any more comments, and will make sure to drop something at your FAC within the next two days. Cheers.--NØ 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Trainor's family encouraged her to pursue her musical interests since she was 11"—is an odd thing to say, it begs the question of whether they were discoraging her earlier. It is verifiable in the source but I would just exclude the date, just saying that her family encouraged her.
• "Following the release of Title, media outlets^[which?] referred to her"
• "The author has described Trainor's use of social media as "upbeat to goofy, with little soul baring or soapbox lecturing"" —I'm confused, who is the author?

• Jada Yuan, from the previous sentence.

• "Some critics^[who?] have described Trainor as anti-feminist and said she seeks self-worth based on the opinions of men"
• "As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube." Is there any way to verify if this is still true?

• I can't think of any other debut single to do it, but can't find a more recent source confirming this either.

More to come... (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help with this article! All of the above is done.--NØ 07:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "At a music conference in Nashville" when was this?

• There's no date for the conference, but she signed with Big Yellow Dog in 2012 so it was probably the same year or a while before?

• "She began her career as a songwriter-for-hire" more specifics on this would be beneficial. For instance, is it known what was the first song she sold, to whom, when?

• Her first song released by another artist seems to be "In the Sun" by Aya, but there are no sources exactly confirming if this was the first. This bit was initially there in the article but was removed through a source review during its first FAC.

• For comprehensiveness, I would add mention of the song, which is covered in the n-magazine source. Ideally the article should have at least one example of her songwriting for others. (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• The criticism/reception is definitely better mixed in, I applaud this change.
• "Trainor competed against singer Shania Twain in an episode of TBS's show Drop the Mic, which aired in January 2018" It's a competition show, is there any info on the result of the contest?

• As Billboard states: "They decided both songstresses won the battle, and handed out two microphone shaped trophies.", so I'm not sure if this is noteworthy enough to add to the article.

• I would add something just so readers aren't left wondering what the result was. (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added!--NØ 13:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• I checked several of the sources and did not find anything that was not supported.
• Sources all look reliable for what they are cited for.
• Note: There are some of the biographical details which in the cited sources are attributed as things that Trainor said about herself. However, this is probably allowable under WP:aboutself.
• "Between the ages of 15 and 17, Trainor independently released three albums of material she had written, recorded, and performed." -> Source actually says "Between fifteen and seventeen, Meghan wrote, recorded, performed and self-produced three albums"—self-produced seems like an important detail here, I don't know enough industry jargon to say if it's synonymous with "independently released".
• "and was released on January 9, 2015, garnering mixed critical reviews"— Metacritic is cited for the reception. It should be attributed (something like "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 59 based on 13 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews"." ripped from this essay)
• Sentence ending with "... sold 11 million units worldwide" is overcited, I would suggest moving the citations closer to content per WP:Integrity or removing one of them. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Discography and Tours section: Per WP:LISTVERIFY, should be cited inline (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do this if you insist, but it doesn't seem to be the precedent. Looking at FAs (Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Mariah Carey).--NØ 12:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When such citations are already provided for mentions of albums/tours within article prose, they don't need to be cited again in separate "discography" or "tours" sections as those are just repeating prior text. Past experience tells me that one would only have to provide in-text citations in such sections for things not previously mentioned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — excellent use of summary style. Also, I applaud your motivation to persevere through two unsuccessful FACs. Third time's the charm! (t · c) buidhe 13:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I now can offer my support for this nomination. It's come a long way and now looks worthy of the gold star. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the early life section, I would suggest rephrasing Meghan Elizabeth Trainor was born...to Kelli and Gary Trainor, both of whom were jewelers. I find the phrase "were jewelers" to be ambiguous because it is unclear if her parents are deceased or if they no longer are jewelers, which is the case here.

• Addressed.--NØ 02:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest leaving "talent show" judge out of the first sentence all together, because it is not what she is mostly known for. I don't believe any of the musicians who judge The Voice, for example, reference it in their first sentence. Calidum 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A question she was asked during the Zach Sang show just sprang to my mind; where Sang asks her about her role on The Voice UK and she exclaims "I got a sick job!". Other than that, I also see the opening sentence of Katy Perry using "television judge" and Christina Aguilera using "television personality". I will remove it if you feel strongly about it, though.

• Perhaps it would be good to specify which Heart and Soul she recorded in her early life. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the year right after it. Could also mention that it was written by Frank Loesser but that may be too much detail?

• "Her father stimulated her to explore every musical genre." Stimulate seems like a strange choice to use in this context. Encouraged would seem better. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "wanted her to", Gerda pointed out "encouraged" was overused in this section.

• My minor comments aside, I do believe this is ready for promotion. I'm really impressed put into this article to improve it. Calidum 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much, and I've replied to all the comments.--NØ 04:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup participation notice Comments incoming. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, still up for this? ;) NØ 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies:

• What's a "television judge"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the confusion and changed it to talent show judge.

• Can we not use the word "fame"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lady Gaga article uses "prominence", is that better in your opinion?

• one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content - Could we say "million copies" rather than units. This is quite a rolling sentence, could we reorder this to have a bit more of a pause before commenting on criticism. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• I'll Sing with You (2010), and Only 17 (2010) - could we merge that both were in that year? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• three studio albums with the label: Title (2015), Thank You (2016), and Treat Myself (2020), - considering you mention them by name later, could you maybe not mention them here, and instead link where is more suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• EDM - do you need to acronym this? Could easily be spelt out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how that's necessary so I changed it.

• The 2014-15 section begins in 2013? Is it fair to call it "breakthrough" for the title album, when it's more to do with her first single? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is common practice in music articles, technically most artists break through with their debut single, but when the debut album yields several top 10 hits (4 in Trainor's case), the album title is better reflective of the section.

• There's a number of OL in the article, but almost all are in the Influences section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed this.

• all- inclusive - shouldn't this just be "all inclusive"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.

• • I'll do a bit more of a pass a bit later, but that's it for the first pass. If this is helpful, and you fancy a QPQ, I have a list now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, and I replied to all of your comments. Best wishes.--NØ 03:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I have a bit of time, and will be back for more.

Lead

• I'd structure the lead to have one paragraph mentioning her most notable works and then the awards. In a second paragraph, I'd begin with early age.
• Also: I'd not end on jury work, but with the most notable awards.
  • Not sure if I did this right. Please have a look.
    • Well, the end is fine with me, the beginning now too detailed, and the details missing in the chronological order. Perhaps try just the albums, without songs (unless the song titles are better known than the albums), and without billboard, and put these details back in order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just want to make sure I've understood clearly, you mean I should remove all the songs from the lead except "All About That Bass", remove "and was ranked among the top 40 most successful artists of the 2010s by Billboard" and move the part about her independent albums back up again? I definitely disagree about removing the songs, as "No", "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" and "Lips Are Movin" are some of Trainor's biggest hits (top 10) and removing them will give a very incorrect impression of Trainor as a one-hit wonder. Honestly, I still kind of prefer how the lead looked here.

Nevermind, I think I got it. Were you asking for the lead to be structured like this?--NØ 09:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like this, - actually the first section might mention also the two albums (just titles and years), to avoid one-hit-wonder-impressions, and a summary of awards, or one key award. Imagine a reader who has only 30 seconds, - what should they know about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1993

• "both of whom are jewelers", - are her parents still jewelers? ... does it matter?
  • Probably not. Rephrased
• Perhaps split the run-on from family encouragement to recording.
  • Done.
• "and picked up music without formal training" - what does it mean, "picked up" in this context? ... or is it just me?
  • "Played" probably works better?
• In three short paras, she's encouraged three times ;)
  • Substituted second and third usage of the word, will welcome any alternatives if these aren't good enough.

2009

• First she enrolled, then released the album in 2009, no?

• Changed order. But I think the sentence beginning with "Between the ages of 15 and 17" serves as a summary statement for the section and looks better as the first sentence. That phrase doesn't work as well after mentioning her Berklee enrollment.

• Can we have some date for the Nashville conference?
  • Fan videos reveal it was sometime in March 2012, but they're obviously inadmissible as sources. No reporting on this from reputed sources.

I'll be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replies so far, looking good. I hope to have some more time tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC) ... or now:[reply]

2014

• "her 12th on their own 21 Under 21 2014 list" - means nothing to something not familiar with these things.

• Rephrased.

• I'm used to subjects referred to by surname alone, so am surprised about Charlie Puth twice.
  • Done.
• What happened to the announced surgery? ... and why August before July?
  • Added.

Will tackle Artistry tomorrow, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

• Impressive list of named people who influenced her, but imagine a reader who never heard of half of them. I also can't detect an order in the list. Actually I'd recommend to link here again, because we can't expect readers to read it all consecutively, and some may just want this section. I can imagine two ways of order, - simply alphabetical, - or grouped by kind of music, mentioning that kind. Ideal what be to say what exactly of Aretha Franklin influenced what in Traitor, at least for a few. Well, I haven't read further, and that may come. Also consider to trim the list a bit, - why have names without a link at all, which would mean nothing to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trainor has a habit of saying random things like "The album is influenced by everything from my love for hip-hop to my love for Christina Aguilera", given that, we can't deduce what specifically about these artists influences her. I have, however, linked them all and arranged them alphabetically.

Style

• "Trainor is a singer-songwriter." with four refs, - no surprise at this point, - let's assume that every reader read the first para of the lead. Looking forward to both aspects, singer, and songwriter.
  • Funnily this has been a huge controversy regarding this article, and has been discussed in depth over the years, resulting in two RfCs ([16], [17]). Given the circumstances, it's probably best to retain sources for this; and it won't look good to have three references after the first sentence of the article. What's your take?
    • My take is to stay away from controversies ;) ---GA
• "hook-laden songwriting style" - what is that?
  • Would it suffice to link Hook (music)? No other way for me to elaborate this in the article without using original research.
    • yes, that helps ---GA
• more names, and names only, which would make sense to people already knowing these people and their music, but too many to look up and and perhaps listen if you don't
  • Looking at some of the sources, the comparisons were based on their genres so I added them. Again it seems a bit impossible to elaborate beyond what the sources have said.
    • accepted ---GA
• am I expected to know EDM?
  • No ;)
• "She composes in a variety of genres", - even I remember that we heard that already, beginning of the same para ;)
  • Changed.
• Half a sentence about her lyrics seems too little for the scope of this article. Sure, that's all copyrighted, but how about one line of example for each of the three topics, same for (later) dialect. Actually I could imagine voice and singing style first, then lyrics, then composition. Be inventive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ready-made think-pieces were available about Trainor's lyrics, so I combined stuff from album reviews to create the section. Feel free to copy-edit it or change the order of sub-sections. Trainor's dialect has only really been covered by websites that have a liberal political bend, and are probably not FA-quality sources.--NØ 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • accepted, I guess I'll have to listen to find out more. - When I write about a song under copyright, I usually take some pieces and say something, translating, - that's not original research but similar to saying a flower is red on a painting. It would only become research if I assumed and showed as if fact that the red flower is a symbol of love. - but again, accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public image

• "identify herself as a feminist" - wouldn't "identify as a feminist" suffice?
• I'm a bit uneasy about the quotes in "did not identify as a feminist due to her mother's advice that she should not claim to be something if she "[does not] know what the word is". To my (limited) understanding of English, what is added in [] should rather be [did not], - or - perhaps even better - you could rephrase by saying "if she did not understand a phrase/term/word".

At this point, I am ready to support the article for FA, - take on board what you like. The sources look decent. I prefer them away from the prose, but that's a matter of style. Would you find a way to include her list of recordings in the infobox, like the awards? I'm not familiar with this infobox, only infobox person, where it would be |works=. A link high up in the lead might also be a good idea. - Thankyou for all you put into this, - would be the perfect TFA for 22 December 2023! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This was truly a comprehensive review. I may have acted desperately to get you here, but you patently proved that it was worth it ;) —NØ 14:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will unfortunately not have the time to do a full review on this article, but wonderful job as it has improved immensely since the last FAC. I would add a sentence about the recent Treat Myself deluxe edition and the "Make You Dance" single. I am also uncertain of splitting up the "Other ventures" section into two one-paragraph subsections. I have generally seen one-paragraph section discouraged so that is my reason for bringing it up. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thanks for the compliments. I added the sentence about the deluxe version. When it comes to merging the sub-sections in "Other ventures", I just can't picture that being helpful from a reader's perspective. Those are are quite different in meaning and nature, so hopefully that's understandable.--NØ 03:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I still disagree about the "Other ventures" part, but that more or less boils down to a personal preference and is not a major issue. For clarification though, I was not proposing that the sub-sections be merged or the prose itself changed. I just did not find the sub-section headings necessary, but again, that is not really an issue and should not hold this nomination up from promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your support with this nomination.--NØ 15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen your past FAC nominations but failed to leave any comments. I must say I admire your persistence and am happy to give comments shortly! (Note I am not the best prose editor so my contents will mostly be on clarity, consistency, linking and things like that) Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The line "She rose to fame after signing with Epic Records in 2014 and releasing her debut single "All About That Bass", which reached number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold 11 million units worldwide, and drew criticism for its lyrical content." Doesn't really make sense to me, would perhaps "but drew criticism..." work better?

• No; such phrasing would incorrectly imply the song defied some non-existent connection between chart performance and what critics thought about something. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm honestly fine with either wording, going to let you two decide.

• @SNUGGUMS: I was under the impression that it would be like saying "the song did really well evidence by this and this but was criticized because of this", but I see what you're saying. To my ears when I say that line out loud, having "and" twice doesn't flow well. Maybe it's just best to take out the criticism part, which is well addressed later in the article and makes more in sense in the lead of the article for the song itself (which it is of course already mentioned in). But of course this isn't a pressing enough issue to make me oppose or anything. 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "lyrical content" imo is also an odd choice of words; if I understand it correctly (which I may not) you mean to say that the meaning of the words drew criticism, but I feel like that' too general of a statement. Perhaps saying something such as "criticism for its portrayal of body image" (or something like that – I'm sure you would be better able to explain/word it than I) is more informative since otherwise the reader is left thinking "well what about the words?"

• It was criticized for its lyric "go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that" as well as for themes of anti-feminism and skinny shaming. Mentioning any of those things in the lead would probably be too much detail.

• Looking at other FA singers and performers infoboxes it looks like that for consistency:
  • "complete list" should be changed to "Full list" (make sure it's capitalized)
  • "vocals" (in the instruments section) should be capitalized as the first of the list of instruments
    • Both done.
• The link to List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor might make more sense under the "Trainor has released three studio albums with" rather than "she wrote, recorded, and produced"

• Done.

• "organist" should probably link to Organist rather than Organ

• Done.

• Link cover band?

• Done.

• Orleans, Massachusetts should just be linked like Orleans Massachusetts (since you don't link Nantucket like Nantucket Massachusetts) I would do the same in the infobox with North Eastham Massachusetts rather than North Eastham, Massachusetts

• Done. Although I've retained the commas since they make sense, imo.

• Good catch, not sure why I took them out (the commas) in the above but they should definitely stay in

• A link to jazz band might be more appropriate than jazz band

• Fully agreed.

• the line " "my future husband out there, wherever he is." " ends with the quote outside the period (every other time the quote is inside – as you can see, I am struggling to find things to comment on, good work!)

• Fixed ;)

• Take out "which is titled"

• Done.

• Likewise the other "entitled"/"titled" uses are kind of awkwardly phrased:
  • which replaced her identically titled EP --> which replaced her EP of the same name
  • writing a song entitled "Better When I'm Dancin'" --> writing the song "Better When I'm Dancin'"
  • released an EP titled The Love Train, which was promoted --> released an EP, The Love Train, which was promoted
    • All done.
• James Brown is linked twice

• Fixed.

Everything else looks good to me. Obviously these are super nitpicky comments so when they're resolved/addressed I'll be happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comprehensive comments, Aza24. All addressed.--NØ 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here and best of luck with the nomination. Happy to support this article. Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite pleased with how this nomination went. Since this is quite far down the FAC queue now; @Ian Rose:, is there consensus for promotion?--NØ 14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: , may I know if there's anything else needed? This discussion seems to have accumulated unanimous support, more than most recently promoted articles got. Regards.--NØ 11:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.