Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2023

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 June 2023 [1].

1919–20 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan to nominate any more Gillingham F.C. season articles, as I got the impression that people were a bit fed up of them, but then I found myself inexorably drawn into working on this one and now here we are..... So please enjoy reading about another rubbish season in the history of my favourite football team, one of the few highpoints of which was the performance of a player with a metal plate in his head. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • competed in the first and second sentence successively. Perhaps a variation, I think in your other articles you've used played or something along those line.
  • first round proper -- Is there a definitive term for the round following qualifying? Otherwise this is not a hold-up for me (as I do not follow football)
  • the team had been promoted from Division Two in 1895 -- I think this can be split into a separate sentence.
  • The team followed this up with a home win -- should it be The team followed this with a home win
  • were absent for the next game -- should it be absent from
  • to be replaced by Robert Brown. -- was replaced
  • That's all I have. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, (said it would go down in the history of the mining village), would it be beneficial to link "mining village" to the pit village article. I think the meaning is rather obvious (i.e. a location with a mining-focused economy), but since there is a separate article on this topic, I thought I should ask if linking would help.
  • Alf Bluer and Bert Nash both had red links. That is obviously more than okay. Just wanted to double-check with you that it was intentional on your part, and that you think these individuals have potential for an article.
  • For the "Works Cited" citations, shouldn't Gillingham F.C. be linked in the Bradley/Triggs source?
  • I am not sure if the Newspapers.com citations required the "url-access=limited" parameter since clippings are used and they can be viewed by even individuals without an account.
    • I dunno, I was told in a previous FAC that this was needed because the whole site isn't freely available. I have no idea if this is correct or not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable. I will leave this matter to the source reviewer. I can see arguments on both sides. The clipping allows readers to see the article without a subscription, but to get more information or context from the actual newspaper, a subscription is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. You have done a wonderful job with the article, and I could not find anything major. All of my comments are incredibly nitpick-y. I have made some edits to the article on my own, but feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. I hope you are having a good day or night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your review, responses above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Another tale of misery and woe for early 20th-century football in Gillingham, although this season feels lower than the others I reviewed!

Background and pre-season
  • "The 1919–20 Southern League season was the first to take place after the First World War; Gillingham had not played a competitive match since the 1914–15 season": It's not clear from this that the whole league was stopped between 1915 and 1919 – a slight addition to clarify would, I think, be beneficial
FA Cup
Players
  • "T.Turner" should be spaced after the initial

That's it – rather scant fare from me. - SchroCat (talk)

@SchroCat: - many thanks for your review, those three points now addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • The Oxford comma is used inconsistently
  • A comma is needed before "but other tasks associated..." - it's an independent clause. Disregard if it's an American/British English issue
  • Same before "and the club signed a host of new players to take their place"
  • "over 100 Football League games" --> Should that be "a hundred"? I don't know myself...

That's all I got. A nice entry. ~ HAL333 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - many thanks for your review, I've done the last three. Could you point out the Oxford comma failings? I'm struggling to pick them out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the whole article and the only missing Oxford comma I could find was "played 47 competitive matches, winning 11, drawing 10 and losing 26".
Also, on review I found a run-on: "After conceding a goal early on, Gillingham drew level before half time, but in the second half, they played poorly and West Stanley scored twice more to win the match and eliminate Gillingham from the competition." with three independent clauses. ~ HAL333 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: - both addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]
  • Optionally, you could use Hyphenator to put all of the ISBN's in a standard format.
  • Ref 44: Daily Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph. Probably also in "the correspondent for the Daily Telegraph"
  • Ref 44: should "decisively" also be in quote marks, or would you argue that using this word from the source meets WP:LIMITED?
  • Note: Bristol Times and Mirror and The North Star seem to have faded into obscurity; I couldn't find any wikilinks to suggest.
  • Note: All the sources are appropriate; some of the newspapers later merged to less-than-reputable publications, but that's not an issue that affects any of them as used here.

General comments

  • I see that most of the attendance figures are rounded to a thousand; is there any need to indicate that these are approximate figures, or is there no such qualification in the source(s)?
  • There's a duplicate link for Watford in the August–December subsection.
  • "In result column, Gillingham's score shown first" seems a little terse, but this may be the accepted form, rather than something like "In the result column, Gillingham's score is shown first"

That's all I could see. Nice work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: - many thanks for your review, all addressed with the exception of the one about attendances. It's pretty obvious that they are all approximations, but the source doesn't explicitly say that, so not sure how best to address.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Pass for source review, and Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2023 [2].

Edward Dando

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dando was a rather odd, slightly soiled character. Not much is really known about him (sources even disagree about his name and nationality), but what is known is that he came to public attention in London for stealing oysters, once consuming 300 of them in one sitting. Indeed, his consumption of oysters was so prestigious, William Makepeace Thackeray based a short story on him and Charles Dickens compared him to Alexander the Great. A small footnote to London history, but an interesting one. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 01:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA: it's one of my favourite articles. Will hold off until a few more people have chimed in, but very glad to see this here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "an ongoing pandemic" (lead): what does ongoing mean here? It almost seems to imply that it's still ongoing as of 2023. As I read it, it simply means "happening", so we're in an unfortunate place where it's redundant if kept but leaves a pretty inelegant sentence if removed. Would suggest a rephrase, since there's definitely value in contextualising the cholera. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in both the London daily press and in local newspapers"... surely either both in ... and in or in both ... and local newspapers?
  • Not sure about the phrasing of "There is little information about Dando's early life": I think we either need something like little surviving information, little published information etc, or a rework. After all, it's not that the information doesn't (or didn't) exist, it's that nobody today has (yet?) found it and written it up.
  • "Numerous sources give his name as Edward Dando, and his nationality as British": I'd remove the comma here.
  • "the arresting police officer said Dando had been arrested two years previously after consuming two pots of ale and two pounds (0.9 kg) of rump steak and onions and then refusing to pay" - lots of and here, though not a major problem.
  • "While in prison, Dando spent...": "While in prison" could be cut: it's clear enough that he's in prison, and certainly picked up in a few words' time by "from his fellow prisoners".
  • "in the Guildford house of correction in Surrey": I'd suggest "the house of correction in Guildford, Surrey": the current phrasing suggests that Guildford was its name rather than location. Why was the punishment here more severe than Brixton?
Was the comment about a more severe punishment simply reflecting that he had to spend longer in Guildford? The impression I got from reading was that the Guildford prison would be less comfortable than the one in Brixton. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this again as I've looked at both sources this time. The Morning Advertiser actually has the important bit here (silly me for only looking at John Bull yesterday!): the magistrate selected Guildford deliberately as "the disciple of that prison ... was more severe than Brixton". Hopefully that should cover the information side of things. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1830s oysters cost between three for a penny": not sure this is quite grammatical (they cost 1/3 of a penny): tentatively suggest "could be bought three for a penny, or for up to 1d each"?
  • I think it's worth explaining the weird imperial units like "seven pats of butter": how much is that, roughly?
No, fair enough: perhaps link to wikt:pat#Noun? It's not exactly a common word. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In early December 1830 when he was back in court again, one newspaper took to calling him...": comma after 1830?
I'll have a go: "when he was back in court again" is a parenthetical clause. The sentence "In early December 1830, one newspaper took to calling him..." makes perfect sense without it, so it should be bracketed off by commas. Just to show it's not an Americanism, here's University of Nottingham (look at the top of their section on commas). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he consumed bread, butter and coffee to the amount of 1s 6d": to the value of, or simply worth, I think: not sure this is quite grammatical as written.
  • "two plates of beef à la mode and brandy": as written, this sounds like the brandy was on the plate: was it? If not, perhaps and drunk brandy...?
  • Is it worth WLing "City" in Dando's quote to City of London?
  • "Covered in mud and with a noticeable black eye, he was imprisoned for eight days" - for public drunkenness?
  • "Some attendees in court gave him money to tell them his story, and this was duly reported in the press": not sure of the antecedent of this: did the press report his story, or that people had paid for it?
  • "An 1878 dictionary of slang terms described a "dando"": I think MOS:WORDSASWORDS would like dando italicised.
  • "In the 1834 publication The Book of Aphorisms": it seems odd not to name the author here; is there a reason not to?
  • "including aphorism 405": I think this should be "in aphorism 405"
  • "Featherstone ... sees the background as pertinent to his approach, even if he was not making a political point": I had to read this a couple of times to work it out. Suggest "the background of the Swing Riots"? Not totally sure what "pertinent to his approach" means, precisely.
  • "compared it unfavourably to": a can of worms, but compared with would generally be seen as the correct form in in BrE.
  • I think the bit about Dando and Disraeli could be a little clearer as to exactly what Fraser's saw as the connection (that Disraeli worked his way through principles like Dando worked his way through oysters). It's there in the text but took a bit of thought.
Many thanks for these. Most covered, but a couple of comments above and still a couple to do. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: that's very kind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Happy to support the elevation of this pleasing article. A few minor drafting points, none of which affect my support:

  • "Dando had been arrested 2 years previously …." (and the rest of the sentence and following) – I suspect we shall end up agreeing to differ about this, but I think it is better to mix and match figures and words for numbers within a sentence or paragraph than to write "2 pots" where the normal form would be "two pots", and so on. This wouldn't be in breach of MoS diktats as far as I can see.
  • Ditto for "ate 13 dozen (156) oysters and a half-quartern loaf, washed down with 5 bottles of ginger beer" – if the odd-looking "5 bottles", why not "a ½-quartern loaf"?
  • "the poor, who purchased them from oyster stalls" – "purchased" seems a very formal, not to say grand, word for such a humble transaction: perhaps just "bought"?
  • "News of his next arrest and court appearance" – a while since Dando's name has been mentioned: might be better to use it rather than a pronoun here.
  • "… and followed Dando eating 11 dozen (132) large oysters, a half-quartern loaf and 11 pats of butter without being able to pay for it." – two things here. First, "eating" is here used as a gerund – a noun in effect – and grammatically needs a possessive: "Dando's eating" or "his eating". Secondly all those oysters, bread and butter need a plural pronoun – "them" rather than "it"
  • "sixpence-worth of brandy" – Looks a bit odd. The OED has "sixpennyworth", which I suggest would be preferable.
  • "The jacket, I think, came from Brixton; the waistcost ..." – is "…cost" a typo for "…coat"?

That's my lot. The article strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria and I add my support without further ado. (Anyone wishing for further ado may leave a message on my talk page.) – Tim riley talk 07:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking smashing now. Excellent stuff – a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Some of these are stretches. As usual disregard if these are British/American English issues:

  • "On an appearance in court" --> maybe "In a court appearance"
  • Maybe link "quartern" to the wiktionary entry
  • "Outside the court, the owner of the oyster stall threw a bucket of water over him and beat him with his cane" - do the sources say if the oyster-stall owner was prosecuted?
  • Is Ann Featherstone worthy of a redlink?
  • Same goes for the City of London Theatre
  • "A dictionary of slang terms from 1878" --> "An 1878 dictionary of slang terms" or so I assume. I doubt there's a dictionary which only contains entries that are slang terms spoken in 1878.
  • In the parting poem, shouldn't the citations come after "Anonymous, "Dando, the oyster-eater"? Or is that unsupported?

I think Dando would have fit in quite nicely stateside - "his unusual habit" is pretty common over here. Nice work and interesting subject as usual. ~ HAL333 03:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Hal, All done, bar two. The Featherstone one I don't think would work - a quick internet search shows not quite enough to clear NPROF, but I would be delighted to be wrong on that one. On the court appearance, I think the former is stronger, but will mull it over after more coffee. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PMC

[edit]

Parking myself here to do this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No issues with reliability of sources. Contemporary news sources are used appropriately, and are supported by reliable present-day sources.
  • Formatting looks generally good as well.
  • You may wish to archive internet-based sources

Really not much else to pick at. It's a well-written article in general, and what a topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC, I’m much obliged. I’ll add the archived versions later on today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, easy pass on sourcing here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PMC - I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps. The internet sources are now all archived. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "the shop owner had kicked him and thrown him out of the shop." Literally kicked him or is this an idiom?
  • "drank sixpennyworth-worth of brandy" some problem here, I think.
  • Why "3s 6d" but "18d"?
  • "and drank two pints of ale and 0.25 imperial pints (0.14 L) of rum." Why footnote some conversions and give others inline?
  • All ‘straight’ conversions are given inline; where there is some definition of a measurement no longer used (quartern loaf and pot) this is in the footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt; much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged, as I also am for the addition on the talk page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Not sure how to comment in FACs, so please correct me if I'm going about this the wrong way. I have just one query:

  • I've noticed inconsistency in how quotes are treated. Some use the British English style: that is, the full stop after the quotation mark ("like this example".), but some use the AmE style, where the full stop (or, in this case, "period") comes before the QM, "like this." I'm not fussed either way, but it would be good for them to be formatted consistently. Either way, I support this GA as an FA. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tim O'Doherty. In terms of the punctuation, this uses WP:LQ, which is to say that parts of sentences have the punctuation outside, but a grammatically complete sentence has the punctuation inside. (Or at least it should do. If I’ve missed any, or got the, wrong, please let me know! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat - At first glance, I can only find one: Dickens's Alexander the Great quip, which ends in a full stop; however, looking at the source, it says "Alexander wept at having no more worlds to conquer, and Dando died because there were no more oyster shops to victimise." Am I missing something, or should it be "oyster shops" rather than "oysters"? Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tim O'Doherty - nice spot no both counts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. I wish you good luck for this FAC; you may or may not remember the infobox debate we had a few weeks ago, when I first read this article. I enjoyed it thoroughly then, and still do so now; it's a very slick piece of work, I'll admit. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Very interesting article and curious choice to promote! Looks like it has been very well reviewed and has been developed as far as it can be and meets the criteria. Good job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc - I’m much obliged to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Featherstone (2013) needs a page range.
  • Freeman (1989) is not used.
  • No OCLC for Dickens?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2023 [3].

Neptune (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who have read my previous McQueen articles have seen the man at his best and most brilliant: the legendary armadillo shoe, the masterful Widows of Culloden, and Twisted Bull, which managed to balance commerce and creativity. Here I present to you a different McQueen: exhausted, commercial, and worst of all, boring. No one liked this collection and no one liked the runway show, both of which lacked any sense of the theatrical. It barely rates in his biographies, and not a single piece appeared in the blockbuster retrospective Savage Beauty. Nevertheless, against all good taste, in all its tacky 80s faux-Greek glory, I love it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Guerillero

[edit]

Pulling up a chair and saving a spot. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a fault on the sourcing front. Everything is formatted correctly and all of the sources are high quality. Well done! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • This is super nitpick-y, but in the first paragraph of the "Concept and collection", the word "said" is used two sentence in a row in a similar context so it does create some slight repetition. The second instance, (said it was a transitional collection), could be easily revised to say something along the lines of (described it as a transitional collection).
  • Fixed
  • I am not sure about presenting this part, (whose work hovered between seductive and tawdry), in Wikipedia's voice. It reads more like something I would find in a review rather than a more objective article.
  • I've revised it to a "has been described" sort of thing. The opinion is reflected in the cited refs, so hopefully that works.
  • Since nationality is mentioned for other people from the paragraph, I've re-added the other two being French - it was there but got lost in copyediting somewhere
  • Yeah, I've ditched Nutbush and revised the order.
  • I have noticed a few instances where the citations are not put in numeric order. Is there a reason for this ordering?
  • Nah, just carelessness. Should be fixed now.
  • I have a nitpick-y comment for this sentence: (Neptune was poorly received at launch for a number of reasons.) I do not think "for a number of reasons" is necessary, and I would cut it as filler.
  • Cut
  • I am not sure about the current structure of the "Reception" section. It currently puts each review as its own paragraph when I think a more thematic approach could be more beneficial. The first paragraph already has solid themes to aid with this organization, such as this instance: (Several critics drew unflattering comparisons to costumes from genre fiction.) which could be paired with the Xena and Wonder Woman comparisons.
  • Yes, you're right. I've overhauled it, see what you think.
  • For this part, (Andrew Wilson does not even discuss the clothing), I think the "even" pushes the point a little too hard, and I would suggest removing it.
  • All else being equal, I would prefer to keep it, as it feels genuinely remarkable for Wilson not to even mention the designs. Almost every other collection gets at least a paragraph, usually more. Even the equally-boring previous collection, The Man Who Knew Too Much, gets a couple of sentences telling you what the clothes looked like.

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I did not miss anything. I appreciate that you brought this article to the FAC space. McQueen is remember as such an icon in the fashion world that it is nice to read more about his collections that were not as successful. Maybe it is because my Wikipedia work is primarily focused on obscure topics, but I feel it better rounds out a reader's understanding of McQueen has a whole. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for responding to everything and for your very kind words! I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisThe Dude

[edit]
  • "the work of artists influential that decade" => "the work of artists influential in that decade"
  • Fixed
  • "Sarah Burton, then his assistant" - when's "then"? No dates have been mentioned in the body thus far
  • tweaked
  • "In the years preceding Neptune," - could do with specifying at this point what the date of Neptune was
  • I've added the season in the body, how's that?
  • "primarily 1980s rock music, represented by songs from Siouxsie and the Banshees, Suzi Quatro, and the Ike and Tina Turner single "Nutbush City Limits"," - this reads like Nutbush is an example of 80s rock, but it actually came out in the early 70s.....
  • hah yes this was me accidentally replicating an error from the ref. I've ditched the track name anyway.
  • "Bare legs and gladiator sandals with stiletto heels further emphasized" - McQueen was British so I think that UK spellings should be used and therefore the last word should be "emphasised"
  • They should be, I'm just terrible at remembering
  • "English supermodel Kate Moss; who at the time of the show" => "English supermodel Kate Moss, who at the time of the show"
  • Done
  • "Some reviewers found the second phase bore" => "Some reviewers found that the second phase bore"
  • Done
  • "Although she did not criticize" => ise
  • Done
  • "However, they found the collection overall had" => "However, they found that the collection overall had"
  • Ditched that wording anyway
  • Caryatid image caption needs a full stop
  • Done
SC

Putting down a marker. I'm enjoying this series of articles, and I doubt I'll be disappointed with this one either! - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Shouldn't "Imprimerie nationale" be italicised? (and ditto in the Runway show section)
  • MOS says "A proper name is usually not italicized" and then specifically says organizations and institutions shouldn't be.
  • Good to know - I've de-italicised it in the main article, where the use was mixed
Runway show
  • "emphasised the stature of the models": "emphasised their stature"? (It will remove the three uses of "models" in quick succession)
  • Done
  • "cut-outs" is hyphenated in BrEng (and ditto in the Legacy section)
  • Fixed
Reception
  • "Pantsuit" is American: "trouser suit" is BrEng
  • Also fixed

That's my lot - all rather trivial fare. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - No suggestions for improvement I could think of after reading through the article multiple times. It seems to meet the FA criteria based on the brilliant prose. Best.--NØ 08:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaranoFan, sorry for not replying to this earlier - I missed it, I think Chris's comment came right after and I never saw it on my watchlist. Thanks for your support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I'll leave some comments in a few minutes. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • File:Azzedine alaia 1985 mini skirt.jpg - CC-BY, looks good.
  • File:Gianni Versace - Magna Grecia Tribute 04.jpg - This Flickr file needs manual review from a Commons license reviewer or administrator. The clothing itself seems acceptably licensed for Wikipedia per c:COM:CLOTHING, as fashion generally can't be copyrighted in the US, and Wikipedia only needs to follow US copyright law. However, the clothing might or might not be copyrighted in Italy. I would upload a local copy of this image to Wikipedia, since it's clearly freely licensed according to US copyright law.
  • I've had a look at the flickr page and it appears legitimate to me - appears to be a tourist uploading photos he took of neat things in Italy (other photos of similar things with a PD license also). No reason to suspect flickrwashing. I've uploaded a local copy with (I think?) a thorough explanation, let me know if I need to change anything.
  • Done
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass image review - everything looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

[edit]

Reserving a spot. Will be preoccupied over the next few days, but after Wednesday I'll definitely take a look. Feel free to ping me if it appears I've forgotten. Anarchyte (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like the lead would benefit from a paragraph break before "The collection's clothing" so that the reception and legacy are in a separate paragraph.
  • I tried it with two but it just wings up producing two dinky paragraphs and I really dislike it.
  • All good, was just a suggestion.
  • Power dressing would benefit from a short explanation within the article in a way that connects it with McQueen's quotes. Seems contradictory that it distinctly mentions a professional workplace style of clothing and then says "Accordingly, many designs were cut to be revealing, with short hemlines, sheer panels, and skin otherwise exposed".Anarchyte (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The preceding sentence quotes McQueen explicitly saying he does "sexy tailoring, sexy clothes"; the sentence beginning with "accordingly" refers to that. To me the sequence seems logical. I've split the paragraph anyway now that there's a definition of power dressing. (That being said, combining sexless power dressing with rockstar sexuality is completely on-brand for McQueen, who loved exploring contradictions.)
  • Yeah, my concern was that it seemed to jump from "smart" to "sexy" without a clear connection. Reads well now.
  • Hard seems a strange adjective to use and it doesn't appear obvious that Cathy Horyn is using it in a negative sense. Perhaps "commented on the collection's aggression"?
  • I've changed it to refer to aggression
  • "Cathy Horyn of The New York Times compared" - second instance; reduce to "Horyn".
  • Fixed
  • "screamed Cinecittà kitsch" → would benefit from a wikilink to kitsch.
  • Hm, okay
  • It's not an overly common word, which is why I suggested it. Thanks for adding it.
  • Jennifer Zuiker paragraph should be last. Occurred in 2020 (chronologically 2nd to last) as is the least relevant.
  • Done
  • Just preference, but I think the Caryatids of the Four Continents caption would be better if it read something like "Caryatids of the Four Continents, a sculpture which Lee Alexander McQueen: Mind, Mythos, and Muse compared the collection's long white dresses".
  • This makes the caption passively voiced, and either forces the removal of the details of the sculpture or awkwardly places them midentence, so I would prefer not to. I have tweaked it to start with "The exhibition" to identify that the work pictured is not Mind, Mythos, Muse; hopefully that works.
  • Ah, forgot about voicing. Your adjustment works.

Anarchyte (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above, mostly going with the suggested changes but in some cases doing something a little different. Let me know your thoughts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • In "References", some titles are in sentence case and some in title case. They should all be in sentence case per MOS:CAPTITLE.


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2023 [4].

My Man (Tamar Braxton song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2017 R&B and soul song, in which Tamar Braxton calls her man's mistress a "heifer". The lyrics focus on infidelity and are partially inspired by Braxton's parents and their divorce after her father's affair. Along with Laurieann Gibson-directed music video, the song was promoted with a very dramatic performance at the BET Awards 2017, which led to lip syncing accusations.

I have received a very helpful GAN review in 2017 from Cartoon network freak (who has since retired) and some very helpful comments in the peer review from @Dank:, @Pseud 14:, and @MaranoFan:. @Ippantekina: expressed interest in participating in the FAC on their talk page. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • Image review
  • No licensing issues and there are succint captions and alt texts.
  • A clean version of the single cover without the PA sticker is available from Apple Music, which it could be replaced with. I would also suggest replacing ThatGrapeJuice as the source link since it is not the best source.
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for the very quick reviews. I greatly appreciate your comments (and links) about the infobox image. To be honest, I did not even think about the PA sticker, and it is seemingly showing up still on my end even though I uploaded a new image. It might just take a moment for it to change over to the new version. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "...produced by Bob Robinson It was released..." Punctuation error here.
  • The 3:47 (Radio Edit) version of the song is not mentioned in the article.
  • I have added it to the prose. It was originally sourced through a track listing section, which was removed as only two versions of the song were released (i.e. the album version and the radio edit) so a separate section seemed unnecessary. Thank you for catching this as I forgot to source this after that part was removed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall not a lot to say. Although quite short, this is an article well-done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Unlimitedlead: Thank you for the kind words and helpful comments. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, feel free to let me know. I hope you have a great rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are just one of the sweetest people I have ever met here! I will be happy to support this wonderfully-researched and written article. Your work is quite impressive, and I hope to see more soon! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very kind words and for the support. I try my best, but I have certainly had moments that I very much regret and I try to learn and grow from those experiences. Looking forward to working with you more in the future as well! Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks like the editors above already picked up any potential issues, I couldn't find anything at all. Great work! BTW I have an open FAC which is struggling a bit for traction if you fancied taking a look. If you don't fancy it, or don't have time, no problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
  • article titles should have a consistent capitalization style, currently varies from sentence to title case
  • Apologies for the brain fart on my part, but could you explain this to me further? I primarily just copied-and-pasted how the original citations formatted their titles, except for removing all caps and putting in italics and single quotations for albums and songs, respectively. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is a reference to WP:FACR 2c "consistently formatted". WP:CS1 "Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic. Use either title case or sentence case consistently throughout the article." MOS:CT "WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article." Is a particular citation style requiring certain titles to be in sentence case being used here?
  • Thank you for the explanation. That is interesting. I was not aware of this, but it is always good to learn new things. I believe that I have addressed this all with the citation titles. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard R&B Songs Chart August 26, 2017" → Billboard (also check charts section)
  • I would change "Worldwide" release to "Various", "worldwide" implies that something occurred in like North Korea, but "various" allows for exceptions. Another ref should be added to support other than US Apple Music. Also supports streaming release, not just digital download
  • Changed to "worldwide" per your suggestion. I changed things to use the US Apple Music citations to support the streaming and digital download portions. I have added a citation from The Source to confirm the single's original release date. Thank you for catching these parts as they are very silly mistakes on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant that only citing US Apple Music simply supports a "US" release not "Various". There needs to be another country's Apple Music cited. Additionally, I would add "streaming" to the table as it is already in the prose.

Best, Heartfox (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for your review! You have helped improve the article immensely by pinpointing a lot of the things that I just read over so I appreciate that. I addressed everything, but the point on the article titles as I would like further clarification on that matter. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passes the source review :) Heartfox (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and for the source review. Have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]
  • A short introduction of the Braxton Family Values show would be helpful i.e. it's about the Braxton sisters etc.
  • That is a great point. I have added something to the sentence as you have suggested. Not to be overly-dramatic, but felt a little sad typing up Traci Braxton because of her death last year. It was also a shame that Braxton Family Values kind of faded away near the end and got caught in a lot of negativity. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Los Angeles Times' Libby Hill viewed this moment as a highlight, writing:"
  • "Rap-Up's Andre" the writer is credited as Andres though
  • Thank you for pointing this out to me, because while this is a very silly mistake, it made me notice that I did all of the Rap-Up citations incorrectly as I did not put the authors in the sources and did not format the footnotes correctly because of that. I have since fixed all of that, but holy cow, I think that might be up there as one of my worst mistakes/oversights in a while so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure we can just use last names i.e. Smith, Kantor, Leight in the "Critical reception" section
  • I personally deem "while" not the best wording... unless it means "occurring at the same time as another thing happens" I would use an alternative or not use it at all. Examples below
    • "and while writing for Rolling Stone, he said it" → and in Rolling Stone, he said it...
    • "While [D]iscussing the first verse, "Stood right by your side through everything that you went through…Why is she around", SoulTracks' Justin Kantor compared..."
    • "However, Elias Leight said while although songs"
    • "Braxton performed "My Man" on the BET Awards 2017 while accompanied by back-up dancers"
      • That is a fair and valid point. I could see and agree with the rationale that outside of the context you brought up above, that "while" is not a great word choice for potential FAs or strong writing in general so I have made the adjustments per your suggestions above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comma issues
    • "She identified "My Man" as her most personal song,[6] and said the single" no need for comma
    • "Dan Rys praised Braxton's vocals, and highlighted her mic drop..." ditto
    • "Michael Arceneaux also thought this, and jokingly asked..." ditto
    • "Braxton said she is close friends with Davis, and added that Lil Mama" ditto for the comma
      • Thank you for the suggestions and for catching these instances. I fully admit that I am not the greatest with commas, and I will be much more mindful of them in the future. I believe that I have revised all the instances you have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Short, sweet, and well-written article. Great work as always! :) Ippantekina (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for the review! I appreciate that you took the time to do this, and as I have said already above, you have helped me catch a very dumb mistake on my part. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything further that could be done. Thank you for the kind words, and I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for addressing my comments. No need to be hard on yourself for a minor mistake - we all get caught up in that sometimes. I read the article again and I am happy to support this FAC for promotion. Great work as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support and for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to check in on the status of this nomination. There has been a solid amount of feedback and support, and it's been a while since this has received any further reviews, which would seem more and more unlikely as it goes further down the FAC list. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PanagiotisZois

[edit]

Honestly, I don't have much to say. Very good job. The only (very minor) thing is that I believe the word "heifer" should be wikilinked; probably to the wiktionary entry. It's a word that many people have never heard of, and one even fewer people realize can refer to a woman. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I have linked "heifer" as you have recommended. I agree with your rationale for that. I rarely hear people use this word when talking about a woman (probably because it is a rather rude thing to do) so I agree that a link is necessary and helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, I always pronounce the word in my head the German way, so it's weird to hear its proper English form. Anyway, now that that's done, I really can't find anything else in the article that would need improvement. So, I support this candidacy and apologize for not having looked at it sooner. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Thank you for your help. I am sure that I also have words that I hear in a different pronunciation than its original one. I always find that kind of stuff interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2023 [5].

Frances Cleveland

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for a second time after reworking it over the last month. I previously withdrew due to some close paraphrasing, which I believe I've now corrected. I also redid some of the article's structure to present the information in a more logical order. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
  • Hi Thebiguglyalien, and welcome back to FAC. Just noting that as you have not yet had an article promoted at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]
  • "...both of which were among the area's most well-regarded schools and guaranteed her an education above that of most women in her time." How about changing to "...both of which were among Buffalo's most well-regarded schools and guaranteed her an education above that of most women in her time." The article doesn't explicitely mention she grew up in Buffalo (I assume), only that she was born there.
  • Is Folsomedale a place? Is there an article for it? Maybe the state should be added after Folsomedale.
  • "Cleveland used his authority as the Mayor of Buffalo". I think that should be lowercase mayor according to MOS:JOBTITLES. "Cleveland used his authority as the mayor of Buffalo".
  • "...when representatives of the president took them away." Could be changed to "...when representatives of the president took the Folsoms away." to make this sentence clearer, assuming this is referring to Frances and her mother and cousin.
  • The hatnote to Wedding of Grover Cleveland and Frances Folsom can be removed as the article is linked in the first sentence of that paragraph.
  • "The president wished for a quiet wedding, so only 31 guests were invited to the wedding, ..." can be changed to "The president wished for a quiet wedding, so only 31 guests were invited, ..." This would remove a word that appears twice in the same sentence.
  • "Hundreds of spectators gathered outside of the White House to celebrate the wedding.  It was the first to see a president married in the White House itself, ..." Can be changed to "Hundreds of spectators gathered outside of the White House to celebrate.  It was the first wedding to see a president married in the White House itself, ..." This would make the second sentence clearer.

More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "spending the interim period". This could be changed to "spending the period before inauguration" to make it clearer.
  • "and she became involved with". Could be changed to "and became involved with".
  • "In the 1928 presidential election, she gave her only political endorsement to someone other than her first husband, endorsing Al Smith for president." This seems to contradict the following paragraph. It could be changed to "In the 1928 presidential election, she gave her first political endorsement to someone other than her first husband, endorsing Al Smith for president."
  • "A 1982 poll placed her 13th out of 42, though the 2008 edition of the poll placed her 20th of 38." It could be specified what organisation did the poll.
  • Is it known why she took an interest in German culture?

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp The sources do not elaborate on her interest in German. I was unable to verify anything about Folsomedale, so I removed it as it was a minor detail. I clarified that her endorsement of Smith was her only formal endorsement as opposed to her private support of other candidates. All other changes have been made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am aware of this but haven't had the time to look at the article again recently. I will look at it soon. Steelkamp (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Frances_Folsom_Cleveland.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Frances_(Folsom)_Cleveland,_1864-1947,_full_length_portrait,_standing,_facing_right;_in_formal_gown_LCCN2005686653.jpg, File:Frances_F._Cleveland,_head-and-shoulders_portrait,_facing_left_LCCN2002695293_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Frances_Cleveland_with_trowel_at_building_foundation_ceremony_-_LCCN2014680806_(cropped).tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I added all of the info I could find during the first nomination, and I've been unable to turn up any additional info. It seems that all four of these particular images were uploaded as part of a dump of Library of Congress images that have been designated by the LoC as "no known restrictions on publication". Do these four images need to be removed from the article and deleted from Wikimedia Commons? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an appropriate no known restrictions tag that could be substituted, if the current tagging cannot be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found and added the appropriate tags. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Well over three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Alanna the Brave

[edit]

I'm going to check citations and source-to-text integrity for this article (will also keep an eye out for over-close paraphrasing). I'll aim to have some comments ready by the end of Sunday. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the most common source in the article, Dunlap (2009), is difficult to find online. Google Books has some pages in its preview, but I can provide excerpts if the need arises to look at that source more closely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update: I'm making progress through the reading, but will need a couple more days to pull together notes. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the wait Thebiguglyalien! Okay. I've spot-checked Severn, Scofield, and Sferrazza to my satisfaction, and have thoroughly checked twelve other sources. The only ones remaining are the National Archives microfilm source, Dunlap 2009, and Lachman 2011 (I'll send you an email to request excerpts, if available). Overall, I'm seeing a very high level of source-to-text accuracy, and have no concerns re: over-close paraphrasing. I have spotted a few items that could use fixing or clarification, so I'll list them here.

Childhood
  • “He was fond of her, buying her a baby carriage and doting on her as she grew up.” --> Can’t find this info in the cited source (National First Ladies’ Library).
  • “The court appointed Cleveland administrator of his estate” --> Cited source says he was “executor” of the estate. Slightly different meanings, I believe: executor is granted powers by will of the deceased, whereas an administrator is appointed by the court in absence of a will.

Wells College

  • “When Folsom was 14, she joined the Presbyterian Church, to which she remained devoted throughout her life.” --> Not mentioned in the cited page 16 of source.
  • “Cleveland, who became Governor of New York at this time, maintained correspondence with Folsom while she attended Wells. He visited her, sent her flowers…” --> Cited source says Cleveland wrote and sent flowers, but not that he visited Folsom.

Engagement

  • “Despite Folsom's eagerness to wed, her mother and her future groom both insisted that she take the opportunity to travel and contemplate her future before marriage.” --> Citation for Watson (2001) should be p. 146

Private life

  • “Grover ran for president again in the 1892 presidential election. Despite his misgivings, Frances' image was often used prominently in campaign material.” --> Cited source says that Grover never gave permission for the use of Frances’ image (a bit different from simply having misgivings about the idea).

Later life

  • “in response to backlash against her proposal of a pro-war education curriculum.” --> Did she actually propose a pro-war curriculum? The cited source seems a bit vague in its description of what exactly led to her resignation.
    • I suppose it's debatable, so I changed the description to "patriotic education", which I think is more firmly grounded in the source. Interestingly, a search in other sources does not turn up any reason for her departure from the group. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Cleveland-Preston supported Franklin D. Roosevelt as president in the 1930s and 1940s” --> Cited source page only mentions her support in relation to 1932 election.

Politics

  • “and the Clevelands condemned the Frances Cleveland Influence Clubs that formed in 1892.”--> Cited source merely says that a New York woman proposed the creation of a Frances Cleveland Influence Club in 1892, but Grover said no.
  • “She opposed women's suffrage, though she did not comment on the controversial issue during her tenure as first lady.” --> Cited source page says only that she “avoided suffrage.” Maybe another source better expands on this?

References

  • 5 – “First Ladies: From Martha Washington to Michelle Obama” --> Author first name should be "Betty Boyd."
  • 11 – “Presidential Wives” --> Author should be “Paul F. Boller Jr.”
  • 15 – “Cleveland's Widow Dies At Age Of 83” --> For consistent title/headline case formatting: “at” and “of” don’t need to be capitalized (even if the original source does it).
  • 16 – “Where Princeton Buries Its Departed VIPs” --> source should be New Jersey Monthly (can be Wikilinked).

Thanks for the great work on this article -- looking forward to finishing up this review soon. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty -- thanks for sharing the Dunlap excerpts Thebiguglyalien. A spot check of that source looks good to me, with only one more small query:
  • Later life: "she learned Braille to use a braille typewriter" --> Do we know Frances used a typewriter? The excerpt you shared only mentions that she learned Braille to transcribe books (she could have done this by hand, technically).
You told me that you don't currently have access to the Lachman and National Archives sources (and it sounds like you may not have had access to check them in the past, either?). Before I feel comfortable giving a final vote of support, I'd like confirmation that the cited info from these two final sources is accurate -- or, alternatively, perhaps those sources and supported text could simply be replaced or removed for the time being. I'm not in the U.S. and don't know that I could navigate the National Archives catalogues, but it looks like my local library system has the Lachman book -- I can put a hold on that if you're willing to wait a few more days. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were both simple facts being cited, so it was easy enough to swap them out for other sources. Alanna the Brave, that should be everything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: The fixes look great (source concerns are addressed). The only thing that's still bugging me a bit is that "patriotic education" part from Frances' NSL work -- it definitely feels closer to the source material, but maybe not quite there yet. The source describes how the "sense of psychological indoctrination and use of fear in classrooms" is what got Frances into hot water with her beliefs (not merely a patriotic education, but use of control and fear to enforce patriotism). Would "overzealous views around patriotic education" potentially be more accurate? I don't want to add a judgmental descriptor, but something to help clarify how her views were beyond the norm. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alanna the Brave I've added your proposed wording, which I think is a fair summary of the source, but I've attributed it to members of the NSL as the source does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien: That looks reasonable to me. Okay -- all set! No other concerns re: sourcing or citations. I'm happy to give my vote of support for this FAC. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnThe Loose

[edit]

Reference formatting:

  • Boller, Paul F. (1988) is lacking the ISBN
  • Williams, Francis Howard (1886) has a publisher location, but other books don't, which seems inconsistent.
  • Linking of publishers is inconsistent, e.g. OUP is linked but William Morrow and Company isn't.
  • You could add a "chapter=" parameter to the American First Ladies: Their Lives and Their Legacy citation
  • Optionally, ISBN's could be put in a consistent format. (I use https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/)

General comments:

  • I couldn't see any citations for Preceded by Mary McKee (acting) / Succeeded by Ida McKinley / Succeeded by Caroline Harrison. There may be policy or precedent that allows this, in which case I'm happy to be advised.

I'll have a proper read of the article over the next couple of days and see whether I have any more substantial comments to make. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) Happy to disucss, or be challenged on, any of my comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • her father's poor finances caused them trouble as she grew - is there enough in the source to make this more specific?
  • She eventually returned to Buffalo with her mother and moved to different boarding houses until finding a home - is it "they moved..."?
  • former White House hostess Harriet Lane - might be my lack of familiarity with american English, but wouldn't it be better to say "former first lady" (even though hostess is also correct)?
  • These rumors were emboldened after reporters... - isn't it the reporters rather than the rumors who were emboldened?
  • Engagement/Wedding - is there any press (or subsequent) commentary about the age gap beteween Folsom and Grover Cleveland and their relationship that is suitable to include?
  • prophetically informed the staff seems a bit strong, maybe something like "predicted to the staff"?
  • She dedicated herself to the child and took up work that was often performed by a nurse. - reads like borderline MOS:PUFFERY to me. I haven't seen the source but shouldn't there be some qualification on "that was often performed by a nurse" e.g. adding something like it being applicable for wealthy women in that period?
  • After her husband's death, Frances became involved in a legal battle.. - do sources discuss the outcome? Might be useful to add that. (Unless the outcome was just that the ariticle was proved to be a forgery.)
  • On October 29, 1912, it was announced that Frances intended to remarry. - do we know who annouced it, or where? (I think the current phrasing is in passive voice, which normally I don't notice, but I did here.)
  • Both Wells College and Princeton University congratulated them with the hope of claiming the couple as its own - I think I get what this is about, but could it be expanded slightly? What was the expected benefit for the in stitutions?
  • Frances and her husband worked with activists Solomon Stanwood Menken and Robert McNutt McElroy to promote military preparedness. - was this from around October 1914, or later?

I make no claim to knowledge of the subject, but from what I've seen in the shorter sources, the article provides suitable coverage, with no significant omissons. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the standard is for predecessor/successor information, or if there even is a standard. Most of the sources acknowledge the age gap and cover Grover's relationship with Frances when she was younger, but they don't cover any significant response to the age gap during the marriage itself. I assume this is because large age gaps in marriages were more common/acceptable in the 19th century. I've addressed all of the other issues in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've seen this already, but pinging BennyOnTheLoose because I just realized I forgot to do that before. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work, thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW

[edit]

Thanks for posting on the WiG page. I'm happy to take a look at this, but as I said there, I may be in and out for several days due to real life complications. I've made a start and will come back tomorrow.

  • In the lede, "friend of her father's". Don’t need the 's and do need his name, i.e. friend of her father, Oscar.
  • "and he was law partners with Grover Cleveland" reads oddly to me. Perhaps, "and his law partnership was with Grover Cleveland", or "a lawyer, whose firm was a partnership with Grover Cleveland".
  • "boy's activities", should be boys', as is not a singular boy.
  • I'm confused about the living with her grandmother bit. Did her mother live with them? You say she returned to Buffalo with her mother, so did they both live with the grandmother, or only Francis did and then she returned to Buffalo to her mother. If they both didn’t, why was she not in her mother's care?
  • Much better, but now it says "They eventually returned to Buffalo with her mother". I think since it is now clear that they went together, you can lose the "with her mother". I've gone ahead and made that change.
  • "but it too was broken" – can a proposal be broken? Perhaps engagement is a better term?
  • In "Washington, D.C., left a positive impression on her", Washington, D.C. is the subject of the sentence and there should not be a comma between the subject and verb.
  • "These rumors grew" – which? The ones that Frances was his paramour or the ones that her mother was? Perhaps lose the "these" and it doesn't matter who.
  • "It was the first wedding to see a president married in the White House itself,[1]: 141  and it inaugurated" reads oddly to me. A wedding is inanimate and can neither see nor do anything. Perhaps simplify it… "Grover Cleveland was the first president to be married in the White House, and Frances Cleveland became the youngest presidential spouse in American history".
  • "for a week in Deer Park, Maryland.[1]: 141  Here they" might read better as "Maryland, where they"
  • "Such was the attention", possibly simplify as "They had so much attention"?
  • Not sure that it is necessary to repeat the surname of the Gilders. Perhaps just pope Helena de Kay Gilder to Helena and simplify "and she would accompany" to and accompanied.
  • "all that wished" or "all who wished"?
  • Link Gray Gables
  • "Among the charitable work that she worked on" is redundant, perhaps "Among her charitable endeavors"
  • I would lose the ; after "campaign in New York". Just use a period and then capitalize "Her charity work"
  • She wasn't the "only first lady to return to the position" (lots of first ladies have served two terms), rather she was the "only first lady to serve non-sequentially".
  • "apprehensive of taking" or is "apprehensive about taking" better?
  • "they controversially had the White House closed to the public while they were present" gave me pause. How could they close a public building? Checking the source, it says the closed the grounds and as the reference says to stop tourists from picking up the child, it would seem to indicate when Ruth was present, but it doesn’t specifically say that the grounds were only closed when they were present.
  • I like the way you reworked the paragraphs but note that it still says the White House was closed. I also note that the reference to the statement was changed from Schneider p. 144 to Dunlap p. 96, which I AGF even though it seems odd that they could close a public building without an act of Congress or emergency order. (Clearly we live in different times than they did.)

I need to stop here as have an appointment. I'll try to return sometime tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fearing for her children's safety" comes rather abruptly, as so far in the article we only know about Ruth. Two paragraphs down, you discuss the other children. I think it makes more sense to move Esther's birth to follow the discussion of closing the grounds and delete her later for three reasons, first so you can say children, second because they clearly didn't move until after Esther's birth, and third her birth was historic. Cleveland was the first First Lady to give birth in the White House and Esther was the first child of a sitting president to be born in the executive mansion.[6],[7]
Thanks for adding this bit.
  • Thinking about this more, perhaps move this whole paragraph to follow the one beginning "Cleveland became increasingly protective" because in it you talk about the Panic of 1893 and her pregnancy.
  • link cancer to verrucous carcinoma per [8]
  • The next paragraph is chronologically awkward. The meeting with Infanta Eulalia occurred in May 1893, so even before Esther was born. Perhaps start the paragraph with all the text between "[Cleveland] still made time for her hostess" and "the 1894 social season", and then follow with all the text (minus Esther) after Marion's birth noting that she was a daughter. (Despite the masculine spelling, the girl's name is typically spelled Marian, the child born in 1895 was definitely a daughter per Schneider p 144 and Dunlap p 105 and to avoid confusion because of the spelling, I think you need to say that.)
  • Is there a way to reduce the redundancy of "language" appearing in "Cleveland also took an interest in German culture and the German language during her husband's second term, learning the language and hiring a German nurse so her children would learn the language as well"?
  • "that surrounded her", should possibly be "that had surrounded her", because it is a memory.
  • The memorial service should begin the next section as it happened in March and the trial was in June.
  • I think you need to discuss the Brandenburg case a bit more, as Dunlap says it was a national news story. Perhaps just add something like "Cleveland unsuccessfully tried to prevent the publication of the article and testified in the trial, which made national news and was largely responsible for Brandenburg's conviction".
  • "at its respective campus", the use of "both" indicates it should be "at their respective campuses".
  • It seems quite odd to have referred to her as Cleveland in the article to the point of "later life" and then start calling her Frances. I would suggest in this section you refer to her in the manner the press did and as she signed, i.e. "Cleveland-Preston".[9][10]
  • Can you add Al Smith's wife's name, so she isn't "hidden"? Catherine, per[11]

I think that's it from me. Please ping me if you want to discuss anything further, or when you have addressed my comments. I will try to respond promptly, but in any case, will respond within a day, if I cannot sooner. Thank you very much for your work on Cleveland. The article is very interesting and broadly covers her life and influence. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW I believe I've fixed all of the issues that you listed. For the "chronologically awkward" paragraph, I just split it up and moved some of it higher in the section because it was trying to follow two different ideas at once. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • The last paragraph of the lead overuses "she", so try switching up pronouns there.
  • Her middle name of "Clara" should be mentioned somewhere within "Childhood" when it isn't cited within the infobox or lead (which are supposed to summarize content from the article body)
  • Out of curiosity, was Nellie the only sibling that Frances had?
  • "was briefly engaged to a seminary student"..... if a name is known and why this (along with another engagement) got broken off, then I'd give such details
  • Unless you can adjust the brightness for File:Frances (Folsom) Cleveland, 1864-1947, full length portrait, standing, facing right; in formal gown LCCN2005686653.jpg, I'd go with something else that doesn't have her outfit blend into the background
  • How did she address the Henry Watterson rumor?
  • "despite her pregnancy, which at this time was in its seventh month"..... let's specify whether it was with their second or third child
  • Why did she decline pension that widowed First Ladies could receieve?
  • "During the Truman administration"..... I think "presidency" or "term of office" would work better
  • Starting three consecutive sentences with "she" (as you do in the final paragraph of "Later life") feels repetitive
  • I'm not sure "See also" is an appropriate place for linking grandchildren when they instead could easily be mentioned within prose (or scrapped entirely)
  • "The" isn't part of the title for Hartford Courant

This overall looks quite good :)! It shouldn't take you long to improve the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, thanks for reviewing. There's no information about her response to the Watterson rumor. The way the sources describe it suggest to me that she ignored it, but I'm unable to find anything that states this explicitly. There's also no info about why she didn't accept the pension; the sources that mention it all just state that she didn't accept it. All other issues have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I now can happily support the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 June 2023 (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) 21 June 2023 [12].

Tunic (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent to any video game player with experience or context that we have entered an era where an "indie video game" can match or exceed the depth and design quality of titles constructed by hundreds of developers. No longer small little art projects or games that aren't judged against those made by "real companies", we're seeing games like 2022's Tunic: a game made primarily by one person, where the design was done after 6 months but he then spent 6 more years refining and revising. And the result? The article will tell you that it won 2 BAFTAs and was in the top 30-scored games of the year for most platforms, and top-10 for the Switch, but I'll tell you that it was one of my top-5 gaming experiences ever. Andrew Shouldice wanted players to not just feel the sense that the world around the character was bigger than them, but to be hit with the revelation that it was bigger than they realized an hour ago, over and over, and that there was always just a little bit more that they didn't have the context for yet, and he succeeded. The result is a game that looks like "what if Zelda but with a fox" at first glance but then finds you hours later scrawling notes about puzzles in between hitting monsters with a sword while trying to figure out the backstory through nothing but context clues and a dogged refusal to check Reddit for the answers.

So, I played the game, and then I turned around and wrote the article (pretty much scrapping whatever was there in the process), and got it GA'd a couple weeks later. And now we're here. This isn't my first rodeo (though it's been apparently 6 years since I brought an indie game to FAC), but the prose is polished, Shooterwalker gave the article a thorough going-over in the GAN, the refs are archived, and hopefully y'all agree that the article is in pretty good shape for FAC. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by David Fuchs

[edit]

In progress. Hit me up if there's nothing here by Tuesday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Ping. --PresN 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General and prose:
    • It was additionally nominated for several other categories at those awards, as well as for categories at other awards such as the Game Awards 2022, the Golden Joystick Awards, the 23rd Game Developers Choice Awards, and the Independent Games Festival. This sentence is just... a mess. I come down on the side of thinking a bunch of nominations isn't important enough to mention in the lead versus prominent wins.
      • Removed
    • The gameplay section switches between "the player" and "the fox" a lot, and I think should be made consistent. You also have "player character" and "player-character".
      • Standardized on "player character". Gameplay is consistent, as far as I can see, based on who is performing the action. The fox does the rolling, not the human player, and has health that is restored; it is the human player, however, that is not given instructions, and targets the enemies.
    • The plot of Tunic is expressed through gameplay, with the backstory and context given only as the fox player-character collects pages of a manual. This manual is written in a constructed language with the player as the reader. It does not explain what the fox player-character knows about the story or if they understand the constructed language. This seems like it needs third-party verification, since it's reading substantially into what's presented in the game.
    • Is "Lifeformed" really important to know as Terence Lee's pen name? It only shows up once in the prose and the infobox.
      • Removed, it's their professional name but I'm not attached
    • The fourth section of the development section currently majorly repeats previously stated elements (the Legend of Zelda inspirations, the focus on challenging gameplay) and should probably get pared down and combined.
      • Removed duplicate bits
    • The prose has a general issue with excessive wordiness, e.g. The fox visits the six Graves of the Hero, which are scattered throughout the game world, and which now each return parts of the fox's spirit and restores them to life. — The fox visits the six Graves of the Hero, which restore the fox to life. and the like. User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing has some tips on stripping some of the excessive wordiness.
      • Condensed this sentence; I'll give the article another pass once I finish the below review of the prose.
  • Media:
    • Don't have any issues with images used.
  • References:
    • Any reason for the ref 19? Don't see why another primary source is needed if the interviewee already says 22nd Toys helped with the ports (alternately, finding a secondary source would be better.)
      • The interview says "We have a third party porting studio that is helping out", but does not name 22nd century toys (that's in the credits of the game); the 22ndtoys primary source says "Tunic for PS5, PS4, Series X|S, Xbox One, Microsoft Store, and Switch", which sums it up neatly but is insufficient on its own as a primary source.
    • Several refs are missing publishers (Bandcamp, RPGFan, etc.)
      • Missed that Bandcamp got bought by Epic, and RPGFan made a new company name (it used to be just "RPGFan"). Other cases should be where the publisher has the same name as the website (the Gematsu website is published by the company Gematsu, for instance)
    • Not entirely sure about Noclip as a high-quality RS.
      • It's a video interview with Shouldice (he does 95% of the talking); I'm citing his own words directly, not the opinions or filtered facts of the interviewer.
    • Given its issues, I'd also say that Screenrant doesn't count as a high-quality RS for FA standards.
      • Replaced
    • Will perform a spot-check.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 27, 28, 31, and 32.
      • Article text: "Throughout the world are shrines with a large fox statue; kneeling at these shrines restores the fox's health and magic, while also reviving any defeated enemies. When the fox dies, they are restored at the last shrine they have knelt at." Not adequately supported by Ref 4 (doesn't mention the fox statues) Likewise the review doesn't mention the camera lock-on revealing secrets ("this also shifts the camera, which can reveal hidden passages or objects.")
      • "Weapons have varying effects; the stick or sword can be swung at enemies to damage them, the shield can be used to block attacks at the cost of stamina, and magic weapons can use magic to fire projectiles, slow time, or grab enemies with a whip. Bombs can be used to cause explosions or bursts of fire, which can set enemies or the fox alight. Enemies will chase and attack the fox on sight. Defeated enemies drop coins." Almost entirely unsupported by Ref 6 (no mention of the use of the shield, bombs, enemy chase, the stick, etc.)
      • Ref 9 doesn't seem to mention the ending requirements for all the manual pages, just mentions using the pages to solve the puzzle.
      • As a reading issue, the citations where you've got four or more at the end of a sentence should really be bundled in some form so they aren't as much of an obstacle to flow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Fuchs: Added a cite that shows the shrine in a picture and describes what it does, and added a cite to ref 8 where Shouldice explicitly states that the lock-on lets you see secrets that were hidden by the camera angle.
      • Used that cite and another gameguide cite to cover this; also ripped out half the details.
      • The game's plot is the reference for how you get the second ending; ref 9 was added because TheJoebro64 below felt that it got too specific in how the player does it (e.g. solving the Golden Path puzzle at the top of the mountain to get the last page) so ref 9 was added to cover that.
      • Bundled the metacritic score refs and split up the other bunches. --PresN 22:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

[edit]

One of my favorite games, very nice to see it at FAC. Review coming shortly. JOEBRO64 16:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Ping. --PresN 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry—will try to post tomorrow JOEBRO64 22:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been extremely busy, so it probably won’t be up until tomorrow or Sunday JOEBRO64 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here goes. I think there's still a fair amount that needs work here, though we're not a million miles off.

  • I'm not a fan of the last three sentences of the second lede paragraph. They're all some variation of "[person/company] joined the project in [year]"—it's repetitive and clunky. I'd condense to something like "over the years, [people] joined" and try to explain the contributions they made
  • Condensed
  • I think the article still needs some copyediting. I'll make an effort to do some once I've got more time, but some things I noticed:
    • You use the passive voice a lot, often in cases where it can be written in the active. e.g "Throughout the world are shrines with a large fox statue" → "Shrines with a large fox statue stand throughout the world." This is especially prevalent in the Reception section; stuff like "[element] was praised" can easily be rewritten as "critics praised "element"
      • Tried to reduce the amount of passive voice, though ironically not the instance you mentioned- the shrines are inanimate objects, so making their placement active voice is a bit of poetic anthropomorphism that feels like trying too hard.
    • Hit Ctrl+F and search for every instance of "game's", "of the game", "for the game", etc. You'll find in 99% of cases you can cut it without losing anything. e.g. "Other major inspirations for the game were Monument Valley (2014) and Fez (2012)."
      • Reduced the number of "game"s
    • Some structuring comes across as repetitive. For example, the last three paragraphs of the development section all begin with some form of "additionally", while the last two paragraphs of the reception section begin with "[element] was praised". Try to vary things up a bit
      • Reworked, partially due to changes from above reviewers
  • As a precaution, I'd add a reference or two to back up the alternate endings. I think it's the type of thing that goes a little beyond a straightforward plot summary, since we mention precisely how to activate the alternate endings
    • Done
  • I think you can bin the "Design" subheader under Development. The section discusses the entire development, not just its design
    • I love how every reviewer contradicts previous reviewers... done
  • I think Release should be split into a separate section. Development and release are different processes handled separately from one another, and there's enough content present that it doesn't need to be lumped with development here. Move the stuff about the team expanding, music, manual art, and the game taking longer than expected under development and split the rest into a Release section.
    • Not done- if I did that, I'd get a single paragraph, which then should not be its own section
  • Statements like "Tunic's plot received less attention than its gameplay from reviewers, with mixed opinions", "The graphics and aesthetics were highly praised", and "The exploration and secrets aspects of the game were heavily praised as well" need direct refs. They're generalizations that could easily be challenged
    • These are essentially topic sentences for the paragraph that follows, and as such are referenced by all of the references in that paragraph. They "could" be challenged, but I promise you that after 15 years of using them in GAs/FAs, they never are.

That's what I have to say for now. JOEBRO64 21:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Thanks for reviewing, responded inline. --PresN 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Checking in. --PresN 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say now is:
  • I'd say "Tunic's plot received less attention than its gameplay from reviewers" falls afoul of WP:SYNTH—unless there's a source that outright says this, you're going beyond what the sources say in this case
  • This is down to personal preference, but I don't think naming reviewers in prose is necessary. The reviewers are speaking on behalf of the publication they're writing for and I personally find reception sections are easier to follow when you're reading IGN and GameSpot instead of McCaffrey and Wakeling

Otherwise there's not much holding the article back, so I'll stop withholding my support. Nice work. JOEBRO64 17:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review from ProtoDrake

[edit]
  • Image Review: Infobox cover art suitable, without watermarks and with acceptable formatting. Gameplay image also seems suitable, shows the in-game elements with suitable detail at current size, licencing seems sound. License for the Dev image checks out.
  • Source Review: All sources either third-party, or properly used primary. The one source that seemed a little iffy, Game Rant, seems properly used within the limits set on this page. Archiving and formatting are consistent.

Pass on both. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Because this is one of my first FACRs, I won't be giving support/oppose, but I'm still happy to give comments! If you get bored, I have an open FAC as well and would appreciate any comments. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest adding Template:Use American English and Template:Use mdy dates (or other as appropriate)
  • Within weeks it had its fox protagonist... Comma after weeks
  • In March 2015, at the Game Developers Conference... Think this could be phrased better by combining the two, such as, "At the March 2015 Game Developers Conference..."
  • I suggest adding a "Year" column between "Award" and "Category" in the Awards table.
  • Ref 7 should be followed by "via YouTube" using the via= parameter

Spotcheck to come. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MyCatIsAChonk: Done most- I specifically dropped the "year" column because it doesn't add anything here. All of these awards were "best of 2022" awards, it's just that some were awarded before January 1 and some after. When the award show was actually held isn't major/useful information for the reader. --PresN 14:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough about the year column. My reason for commenting about that was because I expect the game to be nominated for more awards sooner than later, and so it might've been helpful to distinguish the two. I've finished my spotcheck, see below. Best of luck getting this to FA, it's a great article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck

I'll randomly select 15 sources (15 is almost half the total number of sources).

  • 1: Use B only partially supports the claim; the source doesn't state "dodge-rolling", nor does it support that the fox runs faster after rolling. Uses A, C, and D are good.
  • 2: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 6: The source does not explicitly describe the "ghostly realm" as such, might be best to just say "a realm called the Ruined Atoll" (if I'm understanding it correctly)
  • 7: Use C does not support the statement. Uses A and B are good.
  • 8: Good
  • 12: Uses A, B, C, and D all good
  • 15: Use A is incomplete; while it does support Tunic being inspired by Monument Valley, no where in the article does it mention Fez. Uses B and C are good.
  • 17: Article doesn't say that the game was developed by Isometricorp
  • 19: Good
  • 20: Good
  • 21: Good
  • 26: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 29: Uses A, B, C, and D are good
  • 30: Uses A, B, and C are good
  • 34: Uses A and B are good

That's all from me. Seems like an interesting game, might have to play it sometime! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk:
  • 1 - Added a cite that calls it dodge rolling, and dropped the second clause.
  • 6 - dropped the description
  • 7 - Does, actually, verified it this morning when I added the timestamps- Shouldice doesn't say it out loud, but when he's talking about adding the manual into the game the video is labeled "June 2015 Prototype" while showing the fox pick up a piece of the manual.
  • 15 - wasn't being used to cover Fez mention in the previous sentence, just that sentence; moved around some later cites to the previous sentence to cover
  • 17 - ah, it has the logo but not the name. Dropped, it's not important here
--PresN 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand 7 now, thanks for clarifying. Good luck! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Lead/Infobox

  • Seems a bit off that the developer is not mentioned outside of the lead and infobox.
  • Fixed, that was removed in the review process above

Gameplay

  • Does "lash" refer to "whip"? If so, Googling it, it seems like the word whip gets used significantly more often in the context of Tunic gameplay.

Plot

Asked @Kung Fu Man: to do the Plot section since I hear Tunic's a weird little game lore-wise or something and I'd like to experience that. Here's what he said:

  • "Every time an enemy kills the fox" <- This may be better as "If the fox is killed during this time by an enemy" - Since it ties into something mentioned later, but also makes it an if statement rather than implying deaths are guaranteed?
  • Agreed, done
  • Other than that I feel like New Game Plus may need a small explanation like simply saying "and start from the beginning with X" because not all games handle NG+ the same way (i.e. yeah you start from the beginning in some, but with your gear carrying over instead of levels).
  • Done, ironically this is one of those where you keep items, not levels.
@Cukie Gherkin: Done all above. --PresN 15:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

All looks good, only thing I'd like to see would be content relating to Game of the Year shit. Even a line citing multiple sources that says something to the effect of "Tunic was featured in multiple game of the year lists," and if any of them gave it GotY, just mention the site and I think that'd be solid. Here are some sources that could be used: [13] [14] [15] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll add another thing I'd like to see - pre-release reception. Doesn't have to be much, but I think it'd be valuable to know how critics felt about the game from demos (if applicable), trailers, etc. It may be worthwhile to add a sentence describing how people saw the game, and whether it got any awards (like "Best of E3"). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Now added both of these. Pre-release is in the announcement/release subsection, because it didn't fit in the flow of reception very well and also it didn't win any awards. --PresN 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, looks good. Support. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

I reviewed the GA article and thought this was very close to FA. I've been watching this closely and I can say that the additional reviews have helped this get to FA status. It exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (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) 20 June 2023 [16].

Battle of New Carthage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another in the seemingly endless series of Second Punic War articles I have been nominating. This one sees a young Publius Cornelius Scipio demonstrating tactical innovation in his first full command – in Iberia. (Readers of my last FAC will recognise him as the man who was to eventually defeat Hannibal and win the war for the Romans.) A brief but hopefully interesting account. I heavily reworked it earlier in the year and took it through a thorough GAN last month. Comments and thoughts are all welcomed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisThe Dude

[edit]
  • "Roman ships attempted to escalade the wall" - surely it was men from the ships, not the ships themselves?
Let me just check the sources ... Yep, you're right. Changed.
  • "Scipio was extremely young by Roman standards for such a command, he was in his mid-twenties" - I would make that comma a semi-colon
I wouldn't.
  • "Romans would have had to retreat; which would have demoralised their Iberian allies and probably have led to defections among them." - conversely I think that semi-colon should be a comma
Ok.
  • "Or one of the other Carthaginian armies would have come to Hasdrubal's assistance, raising the possibility of the Romans suffering a defeat similar to that of 211 BC." - this is not a complete sentence. Maybe change the "or" to "alternatively".....?
Rephrased.
  • "was founded by in about 217 BC" - don't think the word "by" is needed there
Sorry. Silly typo.
  • "To the Carthaginians surprise" => "To the Carthaginians' surprise"
Oops.
  • "The near-contemporary[47][48] and usually reliable[49][50][51][52] Greek[53][54] historian[54][55] Polybius" - is there a way to avoid having this so broken up by refs.....?
Sure. It got hammered in the GAN. (Despite the originally minimally-cited text being identical to that which has gone unchallenged through several FACs.) So I felt a need to nail all aspects of hte description down. And I frown on making changes in a review then reverting them once promoted. However, if a FAC reviewer were to insist ...
  • "one of the men attacking from this direction shared the award for being the first onto the walls" - shared it with whom?
With another awardee. The point is that the naval escalade had at least some degree of success, does a reader care how many it was shared with or who they were?
  • "including 600 talents of silver.[note 7] [70]" - there's a gap between the two refs there
Eagle eyed. Thank you.
Thanks ChrisTheDude, you have picked up some real bloopers. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - while I think it looks a bit silly having four separate blocks of refs totalling ten different citations within the first eight words of a sentence, I suppose when all's said and done there's no rule against it so I won't push that point...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

No reservations about the content: clear, balanced, evidently well sourced, and properly illustrated. I shall look in again with the expectation of adding my support for elevation to FA. For now, a few very minor quibbles about the prose:

  • "its capital New Carthage" – here and in the main text, in accordance with the usual punctuation rules for restrictive/non-restrictive constructions, you need a comma after "capital".
Et tu?
  • "he commenced his attack" – curiously refained word in connexion with "attack"; a stronger, shorter word like "started" or "began" would, I think, be more in keeping.
I think we have t differ on this. (In military history variants of "commence" are common in this context, which I realise butters no parsnips on Wikipedia.)
  • "Scipio was extremely young by Roman standards for such a command, he was in his mid-twenties..." – comma splice; either a colon or semicolon (equally suitable here) is needed.
Colon inserted.
  • "unprecedentedly inexperienced, in terms of not having held any prior senior positions" – a touch wordy: we could lose "in terms of" without damage to grammar or meaning. (Still more concise to say "unprecedentedly inexperienced, having previously held no senior positions", possibly.)
I see that I need to add a little context. So now even wordier. Does "He unprecedentedly inexperienced to hold such a position by Roman standards of the time, having not held any prior senior positions." work?
Well enough, as long as you add the missing "was" before "unprecedentedly". Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each as large or larger than the Roman force" – this would be fine in speech, but in formal English we ought to follow grammatical rules, and you need another "as", before "or" (or you could dodge the grammatical point by writing "each at least as large as ...").
Additional 'as' inserted.
  • "difficult for them to mutually support each other" – can you unmutually support each other?
One can indeed - in military parlance. "Mutually supporting" is a military term for which there is no link, but which is I think broadly understood; see [17] - although the 734,000,000 results is astonishing.
  • "If either commander felt at a disadvantage, they might march off ... or decline to leave their fortified camp" – there were no female commanders and the conspicuous use of gender-neutral "they" and "their" looks a bit daft: "he" and "his" would be more natural.
Hmm. You dinosaur. Reluctantly changed. The ghosts of Boudica, Zenobia and the Trung sisters shall surely haunt your dreams.
  • "known to the Romans as Carthago Nova" – in the interests of balance, if you're telling us what the Romans called the place, I think you should also tell us what the Carthaginians called it.
Sadly, this is not known, other than that it translated as "New Carthage". After the 3PW the Romans weren't big on preserving Punic culture.
  • "The Romans hung back, so the initial fighting developed" – I do not think "so" should be pressed into service as a conjunction in formal English.
No? Tweaked.
  • "The near-contemporary[47][48] and usually reliable[49][50][51][52] Greek[53][54] historian[54][55] Polybius" – this avalanche of bracketed blue numbers rather flattens one. Is there no means of bundling two or more citations together in the algebraic cuneiform sfn system you use, so that e.g. for "usually reliable" we could have a single reference: "Curry 2012, p. 3; Champion 2015, p. 102; Goldsworthy 2006, p. 20–21; and Lazenby 1996, p. x–xi and 82–84"?
Sorted. Thank you.
I say! That's tons better. Now very neat, and still completely clear. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "J H Richardson" – I'm entirely with you about the omission of full stops, but alas the Manual of Procedure has yet to catch up with the later 20th century, let alone the 21st, and insists on Olde Worlde full stops in people's initials.
Bleh. Inserted.
  • "The martial booty has been described by modern historians as "colossal".[28]" – if it's "modern historians" (plural) we could do with a citation to more than just one historian who uses the word.
Good point. Slightly rephrased.
  • "control over almost all of the Mediterranean coast" – do we need the "of" here?
Expurged.
  • "between Carthage and their armies" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
Whoopsie.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, all dealt with. I suspect a growing fondness for sandal and elephant drama? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All shipshape now, in my view. Happy to support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Give me the Hundred Years' War any time, but I nevertheless look forward to more instalments of the Sandal and Elephant Show in due course. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Coming soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • How fascinating: "its capital, New Carthage". I think you are evolving, Gog.
Cough! Mr riley, above, made me do it.
If I may make it plain, the comma is needed here because this is gramatically a non-restrictive (i.e. a describing) phrase. Without a comma New Carthage could be one of any number of capitals, just as "my brother George" is one of an unspecified number of brothers, but "my brother, George", is telling you that George is my only brother. The insertion of non-restrictive commas can turn a truism into an unwarranted slur: there is a world of difference between "Wikipedia editors who are pedantic are a pain" – which few would deny – and "Wikipedia editors, who are pedantic, are a pain", which is an unjustified and untrue generalisation. This has nothing to do with transatlantic superstitions about commas, e.g. those after dates: "In 1923 comma he invaded France", where the comma is not required in the King's English but is evidently compulsory in Amerenglish. There is also an AmE "rule": "when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause, do not use a comma before or after the subordinating conjunction", with which Fowler and Gowers and their successors very sensibly have no truck, and is to be ignored in BrE. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What strikes me as unsual is that there is not a section to discuss sources. If I assume correctly, I believe Polybius is a major source of all things Punic Wars, and I think mentioning his potential shortcomings as a historian would be valuable here.
This is a source of much contention, with many editorsand reviewers objecting to sections on sources at all. I try these days to limit them to longer articles: wars, campaigns and those battles considered more important/on which there is most material. Interestingly, not a single source I accessed had any negative comments about Polybius's coverage of New Carthage, apart from his nonsense about the tide.
Ah, I see a brief mention to Polybius in the Second assault section. However, I still think a sources section would still be useful.
They are the same thing. Not sure why a reader might think that a non-military person might be in charge of military reinforcements and stabilising a military situation, but fair enough - I have added a brief introduction, how does it read?
Perfectly. With some commas too, I see :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excellent harbour": What made the harbour excellent? Its strategic location which allowed for optimal conditions for trade?
That would be an 'excellently situated harbour'. This one was "bigger and better provided than any other in Spain", it "possessed deep and protected [from the elements] harbours perfect for large naval forces". It was, as it happens, alsp "perfectly placed ... as a transit point [to and from Carthage]". I could bang on in this vein a fair bit if you think a reader might care.
Perhaps just briefly. I was slightly confused while reading this bit. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a little.
  • Introduce Dexter Hoyos in note 5?
Ah, yes, done.
  • "It was usual...": a bit minor, but I find "usual" a strange word to use here. Would something like "commonplace" work?
Ugh! I would rather not. I would change to 'normal', but that is the word the source uses. What is the problem with "usual"?
  • "This sealed the fate of the Carthaginians in Iberia[5][71] and the last Carthaginian-held city in the peninsula, Gades, defected to the Romans": When did they defect? Also in 206 BC?
It is not actually known for certain. Mago left Iberia with the last Carthaginian troops in autumn 206 and Gades defected "a little later/after this". So probably (almost certainly) late 206 - but not cited clearly enough (because Polybius didn't definitively date it) to put in the text. Which must be why I've fudged it, I had forgotten that.

Oh goodness. This was quite violent. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polybius goes into some detail explaining just what was involved in a Roman sack, and some of the sources give edited highlights. I tried to skip lightly over some of the gorier bits.
Cheers Unlimitedlead. Sorry to disappoint you with the superfluity of commas. Thanks for the review. Some queries among my other comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - a bit on the harbour added. Anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope: support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

All images seem to be properly placed and licenced. ALT text is inconsistently capitalized. Curry, Andrew and this are apparently not used? Book sources appear to inconsistently have page numbers. I can't access to many sources so only did a cursory spot-check of Lowe which seems to check out and of Richardson where the page number seems to be wrong. Otherwise, source formatting seems consistent and the sources seem to be reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT text capitalisation standardised.
  • Curry and Spanish tosh removed. Sorry about them.
  • I don't understand your comment about books and page numbers. These are not given, except for anthologies, when the page range of an individual contributor's work is given, as is standard. Am I missing something?
  • Richardson: I am not sure where I got page 474 from, as it is patently wrong. As the version I can access is electronic and does not give page numbers I suspect I was attempting to give the full page range, which is what I have now done. 17 pages is a bit long for a cite, but it does all bear to the text being supported, so hopefully you can accept it.

A source and an image review. That is very good of you Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers things was precisely the anthology thing, so I guess we are good to go there as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2023 [18].

Henry II of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC), User:Hchc2009[reply]

I was planning on nominating this article later this year, but here are in May. After somehow promoting Edward I of England in February, I have been working with the blessing of the now-retired Hchc to improve Henry II of England for FA status, and I think we have gotten there. The article has undergone a lenghty and comprehensive peer review from @Tim riley, Dudley Miles, Serial Number 54129, Borsoka, and Ceoil: all are invited to leave further comments. Thank y'all and enjoy another article about an English royal, courtesy of an American southerner, and, uh, whatever Hchc is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Ealdgyth, the GA reviewer, and @Hawkeye7, Dank, Sturmvogel 66, and Ian Rose: all of whom reviewed the article at ACR. All are invited to comment, but none are obligated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial#

[edit]
That 'by' is doing a lot of work there. While you have the highest number of edits to the article, in terms of text/authorship you've contributed between five and 16%. Happy days! You flatter me, but I wouldn't call my contribution to the peer review either lengthy or comprehensive; IIRC, all I did was make some cretinous remarks regarding sourcing. Bit if that helped, it's really nice to know! Re sourcing, you'll notice I've made a couple of tweaks for you, as they would certainly have been raised at the source review (page ranges, locations, etc). On locations, something you'll have to establish for yourself is your style; no-one will much mind which, as long as consistency is maintained. For example, I don't think we need top-level country names as part of the location (if our reader has got to the bottom of 1 ~13,000-word article like this, they probably don't need to be told what countries NY, Paris or London are in!). You list 'New York, New York, United States', but also New Haven, CT. Two things here. The first uses place/state/country, while the other uses simply place/abbreviated state. Also, some dating issues: If you've used the original versions of Cantor, Churchill and Duggan then obviously use those dates but get a OCLC number off Worldcat, whereas if you used a later version that has the ISBN use that but link back with |orig-year=. On ISBNs, there's a few works from the 90s that are probably sufficiently recent to have 13-digit isbns rather than 10.
Just a few thoughts. Best of luck with the promotion! SN54129 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 Thank you for your lengthy and helpful comments! They have all been taken care of. See you around, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13-digit ISBNs only became official in 2007.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 Since I have already changed all of the ISBNs to have thirteen digits, should I change them back? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. Personally I prefer the format in use when published, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it as is, and then change it back if anyone else objects. Thank you for weighing in. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

[edit]
  • "what was conventionally a period of truce".
    Why was it conventionally a period of truce? What period was it? Negotiation period? Or...? [I'm reading from bottom to top, so if it's stated a little above, sorry]...
It is indeed stated above; please let me know if it is unclear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image sources do not say who is who, so I cannot label them without conflicting with OR, but I would assume that Richard is the one wearing red. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few original words below the image here and here, but I doubt they're helpful. Far more words here, but I wonder, is reading the original a form of WP:OR? I dunno. I suggest you just copy the description from the site, "Peter of Capua mediating between Philip Augustus and Richard I of England, from Chroniques de France ou de St Denis, 14th century" (first website) or "Detail of a miniature of Peter of Capua mediating between Philip Augustus and Richard I of England. Origin: France, Central (Paris)" (second website), and let readers guess for themselves who's who. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but I think that mentioning Peter in the caption and not the body would raise some questions among reviewers. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I dunno how picky people are about dates, but the meeting in that picture took place in 1198, long after Henry was six feet under. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware; I believe the depiction of the people themselves is of value to the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether or not I feel a little unhappy about this article. I might have time to read it more closely later, but if you could save me some time, please point me to the spots I feel I'm missing. Maybe I am missing something! You see, when I look at the Legacy section, I see "Many of the changes Henry introduced during his long rule had major long-term consequences". Then we're given a list of three. Three is not many. Far worse, IMHO, are unfulfilled promises for discussions about how Henry's actions were important: "legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for English Common Law". Now you see, that is fascinating for me. I want to know more. But when I read the article, it's all "soap opera, drama, family kills family, soap opera, drama, family kills family." I just don't care. I know that many people do care. I know that all these brother-kills-brother types of events have a huge impact. But I don't care. The article is 95% soap opera and 5% analysis... I want to know very clearly what changes H. made and how they changed English (British) law. And so on. Less History Channel and more Google Scholar. When I read the article, these changes are given very brief treatment. Everything is just hit with a splash from a very broad paint brush... Maybe I'm missing something? I did read quickly. Please let me know. § Lingzhi (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence: Hey, we can not help it if someone's life is eventful! But to answer your concerns, the article is littered with academic analysis on the administration and government of Henry II: see Reconstruction of royal government, Empire and nature of government, Law, Relations with the Church, and Economy and finance. None of the (at least) seven others who have read this article in depth have given any complaints about a lack of comprehensiveness. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As both nominators have previously had FAC nominations promoted there is no requirement for a spot check. Although one would be welcome if anyone fancied doing one. Is there anything else preventing your supporting? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support the idea of skipping spot checks. If I brought BF43 to FAC, there would be a spot check, and it would involve tweezers, an electron microscope, and an anal probe. And I have multiple FAs. So: goose/gander. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Dudley appears to have done an informal spot-check already. On another note, Ling seems to be a tad bit disgruntled about a recent experience at FAC, and while I express my regrets about that, I find it peculiar to bring that into an unrelated nomination. Regardless, if the coordinators strongly support a spot-check, then go right ahead. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ling, thanks for the prompt and clear response. Ull, in my comment above I was speaking as a coordinator. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Maps would generally benefit from more descriptive legends, but see MOS:COLOUR
@A455bcd9: Greetings; I hate to always have to summon you at FA, but can you help me with this task, or give me some pointers on how to address the issues? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. I'm (mildly) colorblind and for me the only real issue is File:France 1154-en (Angevin Empire).svg with shades of red and green. I'll see what I can do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your generosity. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried and... I couldn't modify the image. I'm not an expert at all in Inkscape and I thought I could manage but it's beyond my (poor) skills. And yet it should be simple: we just want to replace green-ish areas by another color (yellow? purple?). It may be faster to ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying anyways; I have put in a request. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @A455bcd9: @Unlimitedlead: Hey I have forgotten EVERYTHING abut licensing, so this may get deleted soon, but is it ok: thumb| § Lingzhi (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fantastic. I will add it to the article; thank you for the map. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems: one big, one small. First, there's a high probability that the licensing is wrong. I just clicked through all the options, choosing "my work, my work" etc. I don't remember how to define "my work". Just changing colors does not seem enough... Second, the ocean is light green instead of traditional light blue. I made a third version that changes that color. You can have that instead if you wish. § Lingzhi (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence The licensing looks fine to me, but I will check with Nikki later. Yes, I would like to see the third version. Thanks for your work, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thumb|France, Angevin Empire § Lingzhi (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence Is it possible to change the color of Toulouse and size up the image? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What color (or just lighter/darker)? How big? § Lingzhi (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any color besides purple or pink is okay. I want to be able to distinguish between the places in the key. And is 1,405 × 1,675 pixels possible? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INKSCAPE Motto: "Conclusive proof that there are many hard ways to do an easy thing". Took me hours to figure out how to resize!!! Try this: thumb| § Lingzhi (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for creating this image. It seems perfect! I have gone ahead and added appropriate licensing/sourcing and added it to the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chateau_de_Montsoreau_Museum_of_contemporary_art.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Henry_II_Penny.jpg, File:Aleanor_of_Aqutaine_and_Henri_II.jpg
All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:BL_MS_Royal_14_C_VII_f.9_(Henry_jr).jpg: source link is dead
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Château_de_Chinon_vu_de_la_Vienne.jpg is tagged as own work, but sourced to something else?
Not sure what the case is; I have just removed the image. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe all have been adressed. May you please take a look to make sure? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps still need some more descriptive captions. What are we meant to understand from File:North_West_France_1150.png - what are the red dots? Which of the colours on File:France_1154-en_(Angevin_Empire)4f.svg are meant to be interpreted as shades of purple, and which (if any) are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have tried rectifying these issues. Is there anything else I need to do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Apologies for the double ping, but may I ask for confirmation? Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]

On first glance this article is in great shape! I will review the prose shortly; reviewing a History article is something new for me and I gotta admit this is pretty interesting. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Richard Nevell

[edit]

It's exciting to see this article at FAC, well done! I'm especially interested in the aftermath of the Anarchy and the 1173-74 revolt; complicated but gripping periods. Life is busy at the moment so it's entirely possible I may not get round to a proper in-depth review. With my castles hat on:

  • Is it worth mentioning Dover Castle? Henry instigated quite a few new buildings at castles, and Dover was by far the biggest.
I would be glad to insert a section regarding Henry's building projects, but the article is already quite lengthy. Shall I go ahead and do so anyways? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said the only brand new castle Henry began was Orford. Is this worth mentioning?
See point above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some nuance might need to be added around 'adulterine' ot unauthorised castles. Wareham, for example, was demolished in the aftermath of the war but I don't think I've seen it characterised as either.
The sources just mention them as 'adulterine'; how would you like me to address this issue? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed": this is probably an accurate reflection of what Warren says, but certainly not all castles belonging to rebels were demolished. I think the earl of Chester had his confiscated instead. This might be handy for checking. I don't think the Earl of Chester's castles were demolished, for example, certainly not Chester at least.
Good point. Warren's source just states that the rebel castles were destroyed, and I am inclined to go along with that. The source you have provided is quite antiquated and would doubtless cause and uproar during the source review. For now, though, I think brining up the whole Chester thing would be going too far into detail for an article that is already long. If it helps, I can rephrase "The rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed" to say "Rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed" or "Some rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed". Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the castles that were destroyed or demolished in the aftermath of conflicts, please could a link to slighting be added? That article gives more context about the phenomenon. Full disclosure, slighting is my main research area so I'm biased as to its importance (I reckon it's very important of course).
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have some sources knocking around if that would be helpful. I'm writing this on my phone so I don't have them right now. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

The peer reviewers, including me, scrutinised the article with particular rigour. There were some concerns about the length of the piece, but they have been addressed, and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. It is a good read, appears balanced and well sourced, the proportions and layout are sensible and the illustrations are resplendent. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I have enjoyed revisiting it today and I look forward to its appearance on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 17:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thank you kindly for your support! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Like Tim, I peer reviewed the article, but unlike him I always miss points which I find on another read through, so I will havve another go.
  • "resulted in Becket's murder in 1170. Henry soon came into conflict with Louis VII of France". "soon" is ambiguous here. I assume you mean soon after his accession to the English throne, but this should be spelled out.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "encouraged by Louis VII and his son Philip II". Maybe add "who succeeded to the French throne in 1180".
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry's mother was the eldest daughter of Henry I". What does eldest mean here? She was the only legitimate daughter and presumably not older than all of Henry's illegitimate daughters.
Clarified to "eldest legitimate daughter". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I have removed "eldest". Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the marriage between Henry and Eleanor was just as consanguineous as that of her and Louis". If you say this you need to say above that the first marriage was annulled on the ground of consanguinity.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The process of demolishing the unauthorised castles from the war continued." You have not said that it started.
Note 10 explains this; I cannot think of a way to incorporate it smoothly. Perhaps you could assist me? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about after "Henry and Stephen sealed the treaty with a kiss of peace in the cathedral." something like "In early 1154 Stephen became more active. He attempted to exert his authority and started demolishing unauthorised castles. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By contrast, the number of earldoms in England, for example, shrank considerably. Example of what?
Removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 12th century saw the continuation of the reform movement within the Church". This implies that you have previously mentioned the reform movement, which I don't think you have.
It refers to the general reform undertaken in the Church at the time: overall during the time period, not as a mention to something earlier. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The 12th century saw the continuation of the ongoing reform movement within the Catholic Church, advocating greater clerical autonomy from royal authority and more influence for the papacy". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of their income came from their private estates, called demesne." I do not think demesne should be italicised. It is an English word, even though its origin is French, and it is not italicised by OED and Cambridge Dictionary.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some figures suggest that royal income fell by 46 per cent between 1129–30 and 1155–56". "some figures" is too vague.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A new coin, called the Awbridge silver penny, was issued in 1153 to try to stabilise the English currency after the war." 1153 implies issued by Stephen and I think you should say so. I also think you should say how it was intended to stabilise the currency and whether it succeeded. Did it have a higher silver content?
Addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although taxes were used heavily in the first 11 years of his reign." What does this mean? Were taxes lower after 1165?
It means that generally, Henry relied on the demesne for his English income, but when he first became king, he was forced to rely more heavily on taxes instead. This eventually fizzled out and Henry began to be able to rely mainly on the demesne during the later parts of his reign.
You need to clarify this in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed this comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Revenue from the demesne formed the bulk of Henry's income in England during much of his reign, although taxes were relied upon heavily in the first 11 years". Is that okay? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he reformed the currency in 1158, putting his name on English coins for the first time". You mean he kept Stephen's name on his coins for the first four years? Why?
Indeed. To be honest, I have no idea: one of the sources I have read specifically notes that this was a strange missed power grab on Henry's part. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • heading "Later reign (1162–1175)" This is hardly later - Henry reigned 8 years before and 14 after the period.
Changed to "Intermediate reign (1162–1175)". Does this work? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds awkward to me but I cannot think of a good alternative. Middle years? Warren has 'The consolidation of authority' for 1161-8 and you might use a variation on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Middle years. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent his ally Alfonso II of Aragon and the Archbishop of Bordeaux against Raymond in 1164". "allies" not "ally".
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1165 Raymond divorced Louis's sister and attempted to ally himself with Henry instead." Next mention of Raymond "In February 1173, Raymond finally capitulated and publicly gave homage for Toulouse to Henry and his heirs." This is confusing. What does attempted mean here? That Henry refused the alliance? How could Raymond's capitulation be the next thing?
Warren says: "...Count Raymond had recently divorced his wife, Louis’s sister, and was presumably seeking a new ally [Henry].... Count Raymond did homage for Toulouse..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warren does not say that Raymond attempted to ally with Henry. On pp. 116-7 Warren says that Raymond allied with Barbarossa. Gillingham, 2nd ed, p. 100 says that Raymond's surrender was the result of unremitting pressure from Henry since 1159. I do not think you have a source for Raymond attempting to ally with Henry and you should explain the reason behind his surrender. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "In 1165 Raymond divorced Louis's sister and possibly pursued an alliance with Henry instead" based on the following excerpt: "During Lent 1167, writes Robert de Torigny, ‘the king of England spoke with the count of Toulouse at Grandmont’.5 No more is revealed, but Count Raymond had recently divorced his wife, Louis’s sister, and was presumably seeking a new ally". This to me implies that Raymond was in talks with Henry to form an alliance. Warren pp. 116-7 does not say that Raymond allied with Barbarossa, rather that he aligned himself with the Emperor's preferred claim to the papal office. As for your last concern, I have changed it to say: "In February 1173, after unremitting pressure from Henry since 1159, Raymond finally capitulated to the English king and publicly gave homage for Toulouse to Henry and his heirs". Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Becket temporarily agreed but changed his position shortly afterwards" If I remember correctly, one factor weakening Becket was the other bishops' resentment at Becket bullying them into going along with his surrender and then turning round and demanding that they go along with him reneging on it. Perhaps worth mentioning?
I think that would make the already lengthy section on Becket convoluted and too detailed for the scope of this article on Henry II. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the mid-12th century Ireland was ruled by local kings, although their authority was more limited than their counterparts in the rest of western Europe." This is not what the source says. Warren says that it was the High King whose authority was weaker.
Changed to "In the mid-12th century Ireland was ruled by local kings, with the High King of Ireland having limited authority." Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mainstream Europeans regarded the Irish as barbarous and backward." I do not have Davies, but Warren does not say that. He says that it was 12C popes, and that they ignored the Irish record of cultural achievement and missionary zeal.
I have removed the sentence: it was somewhat off-topic anyhow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1160s the King of Leinster, Diarmait Mac Murchada, was deposed by the High King of Ireland, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.". This seems to contradict the statement that Ireland was ruled by local kings. According to Warren, the High King was only able to depose Diarmait because he had been defeated by a powerful coalition of his enemies.
Apologies, but I do not understand what you are getting at. The sentence (to me) does not contradict the existence of multiple kings in Ireland. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction was that you say Ireland was ruled by petty kings with no mention of a high king, so it seemed strange to have somone not mentioned deposing Diarmait. As you do now mention the high king and say that his authority was weak, you might clarify that deposition was the culmination of defeat by a powerful coalition. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1176 announced an extraordinary claim that he had agreed in 1169 to give Richard's fiancée Alys the whole province" I would delete "extraordinary". it was probably no more remarkable than many other claims.
Deleted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put to an arbitration panel". We do not link common words such as "arbitration".
Deleted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Philip Augustus's creation of itinerant bailli, for example, clearly drew on the Henrician model.". bailli needs explaining.
Done in a note. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, 20th-century popular historians have generally praised Henry. The Canadian-American historian and medievalist Norman Cantor called Henry a "remarkable man, undoubtedly the greatest of all Medieval English kings."This appears to imply that Cantor was a popular historian and that he is the source for their views of Henry. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "popular". Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and support. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "Nevertheless, Henry has generally found praise among 20th-century popular historians." You then quote two professional historians with PhDs in history, and a politician who failed his school certificate. If you must cite Churchill - I don't think you should - could you make it very clear that he is not an RS, much less HQ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, he also thought that Simon de Montfort had 'lit a flame that would never be extinguished in English history' etc. And anyone who thinks Leicester was a paragon of parliamentary democracy needs their brains tested. I didn't look at sourcing before proffering my support; had I done so, and noticed this, I probably would have deferred doing so. The historiography can certainly bear the weight of multiple, further opinions from modern historians. This would ensure the article meets 1C. And giving Churchill equal weight with modern historians leads to 1D issues. SN54129 14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild@Serial Number 54129 Thanks for pointing that out. I will work on removing Churchill from the article later today; I believe the reason he was first added was because his popular image among the general public. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not so much that he is a non-RS, as that he was not clearly flagged as such. I also consider the Historiography section over-detailed, despite the fact that it effectively ends in 1969. Has there been no historiography in the past 50 years, and do we need so much detail on the prior period? Especially that on views which are no longer held by historians?
The ODNB has this to say: "Historians such as Christopher Brooke and Frank Barlow agree, and yet there is dissent from those who disavow the ‘great man’ theory. For Bryce Lyon, the legal strides made in England during Henry's reign owed more to his choice of advisers than to Henry's own interest in or mastery of the law, while Michael Clanchy credits English constitutional development in this period to the impersonal force of the spreading use of the written word, a technological advance, the product not of English genius, but of a 'brilliant time in Western Europe' (Clanchy, 154, 158, 161). In the end, wherever historians focus their attention—on individuals or impersonal forces—the scope of Henry II's life and the records of his reign provide a tantalizing wealth of material to which they are sure to return again and again. Perhaps this is legacy enough." Is any of this information worth adding to the article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, this discussion about Churchill’s analysis of Henry II is not useful. It’s not as if article is saturated with h quotes from him or from A History of the English-speaking peoples. The inclusion of his analysis—at the tail end of the historiography section which bleeds into popular history—is a valuable addition to mark Henry’s place along the heights of English historiography. For a monarch who can claim, without hyperbole, to have laid the groundwork for a legal system which daily and directly impacts hundreds of millions across the world, such an inclusion is, I think, merited. Otherwise, it is rather blunted and stale.
    Frankly, just as an aside, Churchill was an able historian and his analyses are usually razor sharp. Those who dispute this should take a gander at his illuminating Marlborough epic. To reduce him, and thereby this small contribution, to a mere “politician who failed his school certificate” is betray a distinct rancor. A History of the English-speaking Peoples was among his works which earned him a Noble Prize for Literature and his analysis of Henry II as perhaps the founding father of English legalism is valuable. Stupor26 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need very little historiography from much before the 70s, frankly. There is an abundance of it, and we must consider summary style; perhaps a short para on the salient points of development of scholarship, but this need not include WC. Hume should also be removed. Churchill pretty much a popular historian. Incidentally, accusing other editors of "rancour" is generally considered an aspersion, and they are not smiled upon. FYI. Cheers! SN54129 19:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the article's mention of Hume, which now only reads: "In the 18th century the historian David Hume argued that Henry's reign was pivotal to creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain". I believe this passing mention is more than enough information on Hume in the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Apologies for the delay, I have: (del. as appropriate) had some time in hospital / been getting trolled elsewhere on the 'pedia. I note UnlimitedLead has dealt with my mildly acerbic comments above, and read the consensus correctly re. Churchill, I can now 'support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work fielding this FAC! SN54129 18:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Using this version, keeping in mind that I know nothing about English or French historiography. Bull, Marcus (2007) has a somewhat unusual archive link to Elsevier. Martinson, Amanda A. is a PhD thesis, is that a robust enough source for a FA? Apart from these, it seems like source formatting is consistent and the key information is there. Where does #245 give the year of Theobald's exile? If Christopher Harper-Bill is Christopher Harper-Bill, David Crouch David Crouch (historian), Jim Bradbury Jim Bradbury, REGINALD L. POOLE Reginald Lane Poole, Ralph Henry Carless Davis R. H. C. Davis, H. Mayr-Harting Henry Mayr-Harting, R.R Davies Rees Davies and FRANK BARLOW Frank Barlow (historian), a link might be useful but not necessary (I am asking since I am using their Wikipedia pages to check credentials). Who is "World History: Perspectives on the Past Cover"'s Larry Krieger? Norman F. Cantor is Norman Cantor? Eyton, Robert William seems like a reasonable use of such an old source. I can try to do some spot-checking from Google Books if folks want it, but not today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can give Martinson a pass; the source seems comprehensive enough. If someone else raises objections, I can reconsider its usage. As for "World History: Perspectives on the Past Cover", the source describes Krieger as a "social studies supervisor in Edison, New Jersey; coauthor of social studies textbooks and teaching materials; former world history teacher". If you are concerned about the source's reliability because of this, it is worth pointing out that the same source was used in Edward I and it was accepted. Thanks kindly for the source review! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All else has been fixed, by the way. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "comprehensive enough" here equals "high-quality reliable source". Is this PhD thesis commonly cited in discussions around the topic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the thesis was published under the guidance of St. Andrews' John Hudson, who likely is John Hudson (historian). @Dudley Miles, as a well-versed writer of royal history, do you think this source is quality enough for usage in this article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martinson is a peer-reviewed academic source but very little cited. I would pass it as a source to be used cautiously. I would personally not pass Krieger. I do not trust books on broad sweeps of history as no one can have reliable knowledge of such a large field. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, Dudley. I have removed Krieger from the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, anything else on the sourcing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so does Martinson get used by other reliable sources? I am not 100% up on the reliability of PhDs but my impression has been that for whatever reason they are less than fully reliable RS; Ealdgyth do you know anything about this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis is cited in Oppitz-Trotman, G. (2011). Penance, Mercy and Saintly Authority in the Miracles of St Thomas Becket. Studies in Church History, Cambridge University Press, 47, 136-147. doi:10.1017/S0424208400000917. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does that tie up your last point? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So-so, I must say. That's why I am hoping to get Ealdgyth's input on the question - I am not sure if in this case we ought to call it reliable. 2 citations isn't that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Dissertations would be that it was RS; I had assumed that the debate was over whether it was HQ. Ealdgyth, your input would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ... leery of stating (as the article does) opinions without attributions such as "In this regard Henry's religious tastes appear to have been influenced by his mother" or "In order to improve his popular image after the death of Becket" - Martinson's PhD work appears to have been under John Hudson, who is a specialist in the period, so it's a decent source, but I would not state Martinson's opinions without attribution, unless other scholars are agreeing - which does not appear to be the case yet. Also - there does seem to be a lot of usage of this source which came out in 2008 and only is cited twice in later scholarly work? That would be concerning - did Martinson go on to a scholarly career and continue in the same topic area? I'm not seeing a lot to push this from reliable to high quality... and I am concerned that Martinson's opinions are being stated as fact in the article without further scholarly corroboration. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth makes a good point. I am unsure how to proceed, since many of the statements cited by Martinson are quite manner-of-fact, like "Henry also founded religious hospitals in England and France". In my experience, I tend to only mention the author if the statement is controversial or opinionated. Removing Martinson from the article would be quite challenging as she is one of the few academic papers focusing on the religious aspects of Henry's reign; several knowledgeable editors have confirmed that she is (tentatively) reliable. @Gog the Mild Any thoughts on what should happen next? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Martinson is not HQ, and you have yet to make that case, then her work cannot be used alone to cite facts in the article. That it is accepted that she is RS, which seems to be the case, is beside the point. ("claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources") If there are no HQ RSs commenting on the religious aspects of Henry's reign, then you can't say anything about it in an FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I will work on that aspect later today; hopefully it can be finished quickly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Serial Number 54129 had generously assisted me with this onerous task, and Martinson has now been replaced with different authoritative sources. And he has truly outdone himself, I might add. The section appears immaculate to me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Just to be clear, were all your sourcing issues resolved? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another ha'pennorth would be that: Martinson is not heavily relied on; she is cited four times out of around 470 discrete references (x-tools is down for me atm), which does not seem excessive. In any case, she's used for—what, four sentences? His founding churches in Eng and France is in almost SKYBLUE territory. And most of the other bits could be easily garnered elsewhere. Marjorie Chibnall's 2006 article springs to mind, exclusively on his religious patronage. Likewise Chibnall should be good for anything you need about his mother in her monograph, re. signing charters in jointure. And the dogs on the street know he tried to reinvent himself, as we'd put it today, after Beckett's death; that must be possible to garner from a general biog. Perhaps, more importantly, it isn't the addition of a random thesis which does small good and less harm (which everyone is getting their smalls in a twist over), but the curious absences of major events—nominally, at least, based on religion—of the reign. Ireland: you begin discussion of this in the 1260s, but surely you want to mention Henry's acquisition of the Papal Bull Laudabiliter which, on the grounds of organising the church there, provided the legal and religious foundation for the invasion? This, of course, leads on to another omission: relations with a very specific Papacy, that of Adrian IV, who was, of course, the first and only English pope, and who granted him the—possibly faked!—bull in the first place. But both remain unmentioned. SN54129 19:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 I believe I have now taken care of this issue in the Arrival in Ireland section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SN, just checking: does your "support" above extend to a pass for this source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: yes, in that I support the use of the sources now used in the section I rewrote :) but, seriously, yes, I think all issues have now been covered. SN54129 23:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

[edit]

Boy, this is a long one... Great job on this very elaborate article! I'll base my review on parts I am randomly choosing to read.

  • "Henry returned to England in 1147, when he was fourteen" - I guess this could be "Henry returned to England in 1147, at the age of fourteen" or "Henry returned to England in 1147, when he was fourteen years old".
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably with help from the Scots" → "probably with the help of Scots"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bringing only a small army of mercenaries, probably paid for with borrowed money" - How about "Bringing only a small army of mercenaries, probably financed with borrowed money" to aboid the terms "for with" together?
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Henry has generally found praise among 20th-century popular historians." - Could be active voice: "Nevertheless, 20th-century popular historians have generally praised Harry."--NØ 09:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: All done! Anything else? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else. It's a definite support. Very well done!--NØ 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your review and for your support as well! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment

[edit]

Are all the alternate names really prominent enough to be in the text? I think a note might be better. Otherwise the first sentence is huge & all of the names show up in both the google preview and when one hovers over the link). Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my past experiences at FA, I think this is permissible. I do not believe it takes up much room as is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that none of them appear in the main article, as required by the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, then. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant, 1993. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale is a quarterly journal, not a book. And "37e Année (n°145-146), Janvier-Juin 1994" looks like the volume and issue, not part of the title. You want to have another look at that, and maybe reformat as a journal article? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have tried to fix it, but if someone could make sure I did it correctly, it would be much appreciated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Lead prose

[edit]

Just a few things on the lead: as always, these are just suggestions (especially as so many have commented before me). Feel free to decline with justification.

  • "...Henry inherited the kingdom on Stephen's death a year later. Henry was an energetic and ruthless ruler, driven by a desire to restore the royal lands and prerogatives of his grandfather Henry I. During the early years of his reign Henry" bit of a superfluity of Henry's—any way to remove one?
A bit tricky, but I have swapped the first "Henry" for a "He". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a pedantry, but the lead has "what has been termed a "cold war"" (linking to Cold war (term), while the body has "to liken the situation to the 20th-century Cold War in Europe" (linking to Cold War). What precisely did Dunbabin say, and could you reconcile the lead and body?
Surprisingly, he said both: "...the analogies with the mature Cold War era are quite strong...Louis was in the end led to adopt typical cold-war tactics...It seemed that the tools of cold war might soon be abandoned as trust blossomed between the parties... In the meantime, the cold war between the rivals was back in full force". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a rise in tensions over the future inheritance of the empire, encouraged by Louis VII and his son Philip II" doesn't this technically mean that Louis and Philip encouraged the future inheritance, not the tensions?
As a prepositional phrase, I believe it is clear that the thing being encouraged is the tension, not the inheritance. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they also expressed concern over" — "expressed concern" just doesn't strike me as the best choice of words for historians' judgements.
Changed to "...but they also criticised certain aspects of his private life and treatment of Becket". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for reviewing further; replies above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2023 [19].

Merenre Nemtyemsaf I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Merenre Nemtyemsaf I fourth king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt ruling for 6 to 11 years in the 23rd century BC. There is a lot to say about his short reign owing to an unexpected consequence of a reform he undertook: thanks to him provinvial nobles became more independent from the central authority and started to be buried in their provinces... where they wrote their biographies on their tomb walls. Read the article to know more about the large caravans of donkeys travelling the Nubian desert, transport boats on the Nile bringing granite to the pyramid and more! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

I will admit I have an affinity for Ancient Egypt, but I have never written extensively about it. I am honored to review one of Iry-Hor's FA noninations; this is going to be fun. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead I am looking forward to your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I feel like at this point, I have really gotten a feel of what Iry-Hor's writing style is like, and surprise surprise, we have yet another comma avoider. Sigh. I really am alone on this one, aren't I? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor's article seems spot on to me in terms of comma use. So, yep, you are. :-)) Would I be rubbing salt in to quote a renown grammarist - [20]? Or to suggest that your professor is correct in suggesting that your desire to sprinkle random commas all over the page is a sign of old age? RALMAO! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the MildUnlimitedlead Ahah I wasn't aware that commas could be such a contentious subject matter, other than the Oxford comma that is.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor, Gog and I have a long-standing comma feud :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Comma Wars are fiercely contested. I managed to get through my life to about a year ago - which included about 50 FACs - oblivious to this. Oh, that that happy state could have continued. :-) As another editor has commented querulously - there is actually a school of commaists who would insert punctuation after the first three words of the King James' Bible? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • "Also dating to the reign of Ramses II is the Saqqara Tablet, explicitly relating the succession "Pepi I → Merenre I → Pepi II", with Merenre located on the 24th entry": This paragraph ends in a note, but not a citation, which is generally required at FAC.
Fixed I used the citation in the footnote which refers to the Saqqara Tablet.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the title of Shaw (2008) not capitalized? I see a similar situation with several other sources in the Bibliography section.
Done wherever I could see some capitalization missing. If you see more, let me know, there might be more as jstor removes capitalization in the titles in many cases.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 120 has two periods at the end.
Fixed here and elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with citation 160? Maybe it is intentional.
Fixed nope it is a mistake, that is because the final "." is added by the template and sometimes I forget this, write the final '.' and two show up.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "sixth dynasty" in lowercase in the infobox?
Fixed my mistake I thought dynasties shouldn't be capitalized anywhere. I have capitalized it in the infobox. More generally, should I capitalize dynasties throughout the main text ? Also should I capitalize the word "dynasty"? That is, in the main text should I write "sixth dynasty", "Sixth dynasty" or "Sixth Dynasty"?
I am not sure myself, but I lean towards "Sixth Dynasty". Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have capitalized throughout "Sixth Dynasty" (and similarly for other dynasties). That is also my preferred format.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "He ruled Egypt for six to 11 years..." Is there an appropriate link for Egypt?
Tentative fix the preceding sentence "[...]was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh[...]" already has a wikilink to "Ancient Egypt" so I wikilinked here to History_of_Egypt#Dynastic_Egypt_(3150–332_BC). Iry-Hor (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the number provincial administrators..." Do you mean: "in the number of provincial administrators"
Fixed yes ! Thank you.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Memphis was the capital at this time, I suggest referring to it as such in the lead.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...revealing thriving exchanges with Nubia..." What do you mean by "revealing"? I think this is a strange choice of words; I would rephrase.
Done, I wrote "Several trading and quarrying expeditions took place under Merenre, notably to Nubia where [...]"
  • "...that Merenre has a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..." You should stick to the past tense: "...that Merenre had a canal dug to facilitate the navigation..."
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In parallel..." Is this necesarry?
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. This is the same issue as with the dynasties: I am never quite sure what should be capitalized and what should not be.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait and see wait others say, although I think keeping the capitalization consistent across Wikipedia articles is always a good thing. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and siblings

  • Why is Pepi I mentioned after Ankhesenpepi I? Pepi I seems like a more significant historical figure to me.
Fixed yes, I have updated the sentence accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...indicated by her titles, she notably bore...": Two things here. Why is there a comma? It could easily be a period, causing the splitting of the sentence, or a semicolon. Secondly, why is this notable? "Notably" is inching close to POV, and unless the consensus among academics is that this is indeed notable, I could delete that word.
Done you are right there is nothing especially notable here I used the word to make the link between both pieces of the sentence. The problem is fixed with the added period as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sole women": Did you mean "the sole woman"?
Done this was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Gustave Jéquier?
Done he was a Swiss archaeologist. I have clarified and wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consorts and children

  • "aunt queen": Should this be dashed, since it describes one person? I am not sure, so do not do this just because I said so.
Fixed I changed to "aunt and queen" in order to avoid the problem. As I am not a native English speaker, I tend to be mistaken on such fine issues and prefer to bypass them completely when possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and given that historical sources state...": I would replace "historical sources" with "they also" because it is clear from the sentence that you are referring to the historical sources.
Done, thank you this also permits the sentence to be more precise as indeed a single source reports the age of Pepi II at the time of his coronation so the sentence now reads "Since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade and given that one of them states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six,[...]"
  • Not sure why, but Wikipedia tends to prefer "acceded" over "ascended".
Changed throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at six": This just feels petty at this point, but I think saying "at the age of six" would help the article sound more eloquently written than it already is :)
Done thanks it reads better indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Pepi I as had been hitherto proposed": Proposed by whom? Historians? And if so, any ones in particular worth noting?
Done you are right this was not precise, I have updated the sentence as follows: "[...] this indirectly indicates that Merenre I might have been Pepi II's father[21] rather than Pepi I,[13][23] as had been hitherto held by a majority of Egyptologists.[24][25]" References [24] and [25] are new and were lifted from Pepi I's article. They are Collombert's 2011 and 2018 research papers on excavations in Pepi I's necropolis in Saqqara, where he discusses the issue and states that the prior hypothesis of Pepi I fathering Pepi II is held by a majority of Egyptologists. To be honest I do not know who said that first, I found a 1955 piece stating this but in all probability the hypothesis dates from earlier periods. Do you think this is precise enough or should I find a precise list of names of Egyptologists who thought Pepi I was Pepi II's father prior to Collombert's excavations ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is likely sufficient. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attestations

  • "(many of which are discussed in this article)" Is this necessary?
Removed I agree this is superfluous.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relative

  • "The relative chronological position of Merenre Nemtyemsaf I within the Sixth Dynasty is secure": "secure" is a strange word to use; I would replace it with something like "certain".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...making Merenre the fourth king of the Sixth Dynasty": You have already said this, so I would play with the wording here. Maybe instead of "making", you could say "evidencing that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Manetho (i.e. "the priest-historian Manetho").
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Aegyptiaca not italisized in "No copies of the Aegyptiaca have survived..."?
It is a book title so normally italisized. It is also italisized in other FA articles on ancient pharaohs so by consistency I would prefer to keep that way.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am just pointing out that I saw a sentence where Aegyptiaca was not capitalized and I was hoping you could fix that.Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Done sorry I had misunderstood you. This is fixed now !
  • Why does the article firmly state that Menere was fourth of his line when the Aegyptiaca suggests that he was third? Is there a scholarly source that rejects the Aegyptiaca's chronology? Otherwise, you should not present Menere as being fourth, only mentioning that it is a possibility.
All other ancient sources agree that he was 4th, in particular the contemporaneous South Saqqara Stone. Given that the Aegyptiaca was written some 1800 years after his life and given that Userkare (the 2nd pharaoh) reigned a very short time, might have been an usurper and was the target of a damnatio memoriae from the father of Merenre, it makes sense that he had faded from memory by the time of Manetho. Merenre is 4th in all modern sources as it is now well established that Userkare did reign from 2 to 4 years between Teti and Pepi.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute

  • "radiocarbon dates": I think it would make more sense as "radiocarbon dating". Also, link that to Radiocarbon dating. A nice bonus is that it is a featured article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as follows" implies that all of the following dates are true, when clearly they are not. I would suggest stating that the following dates are theories put out by scholars and it is impossible to determine which one is right.
Done I wrote "As a result, Merenre's rule is generally dated to the early 23rd century BC. Various theories have been proposed by scholars though it is impossible to determine which one is right:" then comes the list of dates.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just realized that Old Kingdom of Egypt is not linked in the article's body. The first instance of it in the body would be in the Parents and siblings section.
Done well spotted thank you !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

  • "The cattle count was an important event aimed at evaluating the amount of taxes to be levied on the population. This involved counting cattle, oxen and small livestock" These sentences can be merged as they are somewhat repetetive. May I suggest: "The cattle count, which involved counting cattle, oxen and small livestock, was an important event aimed at evaluating the amount of taxes to be levied on the population."
Nice ! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you need to link biennial is you are just going to tell us what the definition is.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is found in a quarry..." I would change "is" to "was" because the discovery was made in the past. The only reason I see that it would stay as "is" is if the inscription is still in the quarry presently.
As far as I understand the inscription is still there. Is it fine keeping it as it is ? Note that I did not choose the tense of the sentence because the inscription is still there, I just did not think of all of this...Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better as "was found" or "is located". You choose (what does the citation more closely resemble?) Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think "is located" is closer in spirit to the source. Indeed, the source gives the translation of the inscription then its location "(Hatnub inscription n6 [...])". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce William Stevenson Smith.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Elmar Edel.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accession to the throne: coregency

  • "(Miroslav Bárta[93]);" I think there may be some sort of formatting issue here?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This analysis is shared by the Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner for whom Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young" I am confused by what you are trying to say here.
Done clarified to: "The Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner agree with this analysis, for Verner Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young"
Better, but I would replace that comma with a semicolon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Hans Goedicke?
Done he was an Austrian Egyptologist, I have clarified.
  • Why is citation 99 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

  • "number provincial administrators": I think you mean "number provincial of administrators"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 112 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The motivations behind such changes is not clear...": I think you mean "are" instead of "is".
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The motivations behind such changes is not clear, either an attempt..." I would split this into two sentences by replacing the comma with a period.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were the many marriages of Pepi I may have created instability through factions and competing interest groups": I cannot understand this phrase. What are you trying to say?
Clarified the source states that Pepi I (and later Pepi II) entered into a lot of marriages and that these created competing interest groups at court (presumably centred and queens and presumptive heirs). I split the sentence into two and wrote "Indeed, the many marriages of Pepi I may have generated instability by creating competing interest groups and factions at court". Is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the "interest" part, but other than that, it looks perfect. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 114 not at the end of the sentence?
Done it was because 114 pertained to the "labour" claim of the first half of the sentence. But I guess it is easier to read with refs at the end of the sentence.
  • Same with citations 118 and 93.
Done as above.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possibly related to these developments is the deliberate policy on the mid Sixth Dynasty kings' behalf of setting up cults for the queen mothers Ankhesenpepi I, Ankhesenpepi II and Iput II in the province whence they originated in order, as Richard Bußmann points, 'to strengthen their ties to powerful families in Upper Egypt'": I do not understand what this means.
Clarified I changed to: "At the same time, Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II deliberately set up cults for queens Ankhesenpepi I, Ankhesenpepi II and later Iput II in the province whence they originated. This was in order to, as Richard Bußmann points, "strengthen the kings' ties to powerful families in Upper Egypt".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is note seven necessary?
Removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 126 not at the end of the sentence?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another administration official...": I think you mean "administrative official".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weni, commander of the army and leader of quarrying expeditions, chamberlain of the palace and sandal-bearer of the king who was made a count and governor of Upper Egypt": This phrase is too long and confusing; I think you should trim it significantly.
Done. I simplified to "Another administrative official whom Merenre promoted was Weni. He was made leader of quarrying expeditions then a count and governor of Upper Egypt."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu, overseer of all Upper Egyptian grain and overseer of priests, Qar managed the livestock and grain resources in the South on behalf of the royal court": I think you need to reword this.
Done trimmed to "Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu and overseer of Upper Egyptian grain and livestock resources. He was also appointed chief judge over the whole of Upper Egypt."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of Min, you should say something like "the god Min".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultic activities

  • "Merenre decreed something concerning the funerary cult of Menkaure as fragments of a decree of his were uncovered in the latter's mortuary temple." "Something" is a very coloquial and vague word to use; please rephrase this sentence in general for clarity.
Done. I moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph and wrote: "In addition to these activities, Merenre made a decree pertaining to the funerary cult of Menkaure as shown by fragmentary inscriptions uncovered in the latter's mortuary temple".Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hilarious. You have linked the Christian figure Seth, not the ancient Egyptian god Seth!
Woopsy. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "years of reign" I would change this to "years of 'his reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...surviving remnants of the texts numbering hundreds..." I would place a comma before "numbering".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Kohl capitalized?
I have no idea why I wrote that with a capital ?! Changed.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Construction works

  • I would get rid of "discussed below".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it say "this reign" as opposed to "his reign"?
Fixed it is a typo I guess.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...cannot be fully ascertained," I would replace this comma with a semicolon.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is note seven not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed. It explains what a Ka-chapel is so I thought it better to place it immediately after "Ka-chapel". I don't mind placing it at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of reign

  • "administration official" I think you mean "administrative official"
Done yes it is a recurrent mistake I make, apologies !Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessing to the throne" I think you mean "acceding"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 21 in the middle of the sentence?
Done. I try to make refs appear as close as possible to the claim in the text so sometimes I write the ref in the sentence. I moved at the end of the sentence now.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern desert and Levant

  • Why is citation 154 not at the end of the sentence? Also, does this citation mention siltstone?
Fixed Yes it does, it says: "The lithologie composition of this rock series in the Wadi Hammamat (thickness 4000 m), consists of a thick succession of clastic sediments including

greywackes, sandstones, siltstones, [...]". The placement of the ref was wrong and should be at the end of the sentence, as I explained sometimes such a placement is because I wanted to reference something specific, other times however this arises because of previous versions of the article (or because of a mistake).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should be "reported" instead of "reports".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with quarrying of a very large travertine altar stone" I think you mean: "with the quarrying of a very large travertine altar stone"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further abroad, the high official Iny who served under Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II either led or participated..." I think you should change it to: "Further abroad, the high official Iny, who served under Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, either led or participated..."
Done. Those commas...Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fetch" is quite colloquial; I would replace it with "obtain" or something similar.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 168 not at the end of the sentence?
Done. That's because ref 168 states that Weni led a campaign in the southern Levant under Pepi I, so justifies the first part of the sentence. I don't mind moving it to the end of the sentence though.Iry-Hor (talk)

Nubia

  • "...union of the two lands suggesting that it was carved...": I would add a comma before "suggesting".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are citations 163 not at the end of the sentence?
Fixed my mistake.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Centered at Kerma they struggled intermittently with Egypt and its allies over the region[163] which was the source of incense, ebony, animal skins, ivory and exotic animals[163] brought back by caravans" Can you repharse this to make it less confusing?
DoneI wrote: "Toward the end of the Old Kingdom period, Nubia saw the arrival of the C-Group people from the south. Centered at Kerma, they struggled intermittently with Egypt and its allies over control of the region which, for the Egyptians, was a source of incense, ebony, animal skins, ivory and exotic animals". Is this any better?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 171 in the middle of the sentence?
Fixed It justified that "three hosts" were sent, but I movd it after the comma at the middle of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with "They were said to have pacified the land although they likely constituted a labour force and a traders caravan above all, exploiting resources the locals would not or could not use and only rarely having to fight".
Done I clarified with: "These expeditions took place under the direction of the caravan conductor and later nomarch of Elephantine|Harkhuf. He claimed to have pacified the land South of Egypt but his expeditions likely constituted a labour force and a traders caravan above all. The aim of such expeditions was first and foremost to exploit resources the locals would not or could not use, and only rarely did they had to fight".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who "the king of Yam" was? If so, I would link his article.
No we do not. He probably was some random chieftain and the identity of Yam as an unifid land is not clear. From what I gather "king" is really an overstatement and Yam was likely an ensemble of tribes with a limited settlement at Kerma.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ruler of Irtjet, Setju and Wawat..." Did one person rule all these places, or are they three separate rulers?
One person ruled these three "lands". These are the names given by the Egyptians to vague locations in Nubia. Apparently one person ruled them all at the time but given the sparcity of the population, this ruler probably commanded nomadic tribes with a presence there. Thinking that Harkhuf, with 300 donkeys and probably a couple hundred men could resist this ruler in his land says it all.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 179 in the middle of a sentence?
Fixed remnant from an earlier version.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To meet the demands of trade within and without Egypt for pack animals..." What does it mean for the demands of trade to be "without Egypt"?
Fixed I meant trade within Egypt and between Egypt and some partner abroad. I changed to "outside".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was Weni who had been..." I would place a comma after Weni.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...heavy loads, Weni's biography..." I think this comma should be a semicolon.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 129 not at the end of that sentence?
Done The ref specifically talks about the "five-channels". I don't mind moving it at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main pyramid

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Isabelle Pierre-Croisiau.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is citation 201 in the middle of the sentence?
Fixed this was because "bore texts on the transfiguration of the king" was edited later and I forgot to move the ref in consequences.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with citation 208.
Changed this was because this ref justified the "aggregation with the gods" claim and not the rest. But I merged it with the ref at the end of the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor: I think you forgot this one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Sorry I missed this one, done !Iry-Hor (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortuary temple

  • "The pyramid of Merenre is surrounded by a wider mortuary complex, with its offering chapel located on..." The "with" is superfluous.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further on, stands the base..." The comma here is likewise unnecessary.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy

  • Introduce Émile and Heinrich Karl Brugsch.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be that of Merenre": I think this would read better as "is that of Merenre".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kingdom

  • Introduce Henry George Fischer and Ludwig Borchardt.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later periods

  • "comprised ceremonial objects" I think this wound sound better as "comprised of ceremonial objects".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the comics Papyrus...": "Papyrus" should be capitalized as the name of a comic.
You mean italicized (if so then it is done) ? Because it already is capitalized.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments II

Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me. Very nice work on this article! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead all done ! Thank you for your epic review ! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Happy to support this nomination! Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe

[edit]

The number of footnotes in the article seems excessive by far. If the content in the footnotes is aiding reader understanding of the subject it should be in the article, not hidden in a footnote, if it does not, then it does not belong anywhere in the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Ok but specifically what do you think? Which footnote is not aiding the reader in understanding the article ? And which one should be included in the main text ? I have removed or incorporated to the main text 13 footnotes. I don't see how to reduce the other ones for now. Some of the long footnotes respond to questions that have been raised in the previous FA of Pepi I, asking for details on specific points. Others allow the reader to understand sources talking about the same thing using different names or differing numbering. Some give necessary examples illustrating the point made in the main text allowing an in-depth inquiry without overloading the text for the casual reader. But I am of course opened to further improve the article with your suggestions on specific footnotes.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not find the number of footnotes to be an issue; in fact, I find that it is impossible to write about historical figures (especially Ancient Egyptian ones) without using a large amount of notes. I do concur that it would be beneficial for a few to be incorporated into the main text, however. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved footnote 4 to a separate section in the main text and all dates for Merenre's reign at the end of the chronology section. I removed two more footnote and will continue to see how to further reduce the remaining ones.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated more footnotes in the text and deleted a few, the article is now down to 16 footnotes out of 33 originally. Let me know what you think, I hope this addresses your concern.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Now down to 13 footnotes, is this sufficient or are the remaining ones still too much ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buidhe could you please indicate if you have more comments on the article for now ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • File:Merenre.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Hidden_treasures_09.jpg
Nikkimaria I don't get it: I am the original author and uploader of File:Merenre.jpg (I visited the Louvre !) so I put a "{ {self|cc-by-sa-3.0} }" tag at the time. Was this not enough? I have added "{ {PD-user|Iry-Hor} }" and "{ {PD-self} }" tags now, is this what you had in mind ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your tagging accounts for the copyright status of the photograph, which is fine. However, France does not have freedom of panorama, so we also need to account for the copyright of the object you photographed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok I get it thank you, but what is the tag for that ?!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah also why is File:Hidden_treasures_09.jpg concerned ? From what I understand the picture was taken in Egypt, is a { {PD Egypt} } tag necessary ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actively on public display, and if so where? The source link is a 404. As for the other work, it would be public domain due to its age, it just needs an explicit tag for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok so for the statue, I do not know for sure if it still on display, I would suspect that it is on display in the new grand Egyptian museum. This photo was taken in the old Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In fact this photo is entirely similar to this one which appears in an FA article and has the same tags. For the box I put a { {PD-old} } tag.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PD-old needs to be supplemented with a US tag. For Hidden_treasures_09.jpg, is an updated source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok US tag added to the box image. For Hidden trasures I could not find an updated source, instead I replaced the image by another one definitely US-1923, from a 1911 publication so this settles this issue.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SouthSaqqaraStone.png: source should be in the description rather than in the image itself
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Merenre_Abydos.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Merenre_rock_inscription_Assuan_2.jpg, File:Merenre_rock_inscription_Assuan.jpg
Done.Iry-Hor (talk)
I am not completely sure: the publication was made in a two parts book (with the 8th and 9th volume of a series in a single publication). Now I am completely sure the book is dated 1924 (as can be visually verified online here) however I have doubts regarding the second half of the book: was the 9th volume published separately from the 8th prior to this edition? Because many modern sources give 1928 for the 9th volume and not 1924. Note: this was published outside the US.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If it were the case that this was not published until 1928, any idea if the copyright was registered/renewed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Yes the book of the source available online is hosted by NYU Library, below the book they state: "NYU has researched copyright requirements and restrictions for each of the countries of publication and believes the materials displayed on this site have been cleared by the rights holder, are specified in the rights statement attached to each work, or are in the public domain." Consequently I added a { {PD-US-no notice} } tag. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria Are all images fine now?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the copy of the book linked does include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, you mean NYU's library is putting online copyrighted material?! Is { {{PD-US-not renewed} } appropriate instead ? Iry-Hor (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYU is saying that they believe the work is in the public domain but are not specifying why they believe that to be the case, which can make selecting an appropriate tag difficult. This is sometimes addressed by placing a No known restrictions tag, although unfortunately there doesn't appear to be one specific to NYU yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Done! I created the category template and all necessary steps have been taken.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Could you please indicate if you think the image review is complete now ? I am anxious to see the article succeed at FAC. If some picture is still not up to it, let me know and I will simply take it down.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens

[edit]

Will read as soon as time allows. For now, one point: Names were super important in Ancient Egypt, but I cannot see any information on the various names. For example, "Horus name" is mentioned once in the article, but what was his Horus name? The German Wikipedia article (which is a good article) has a nice overview over all the names [21], the yellow table on the top right ("Names of Merenre"). Do you think a section about the names, accompanied with such a table, would be possible? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens LallensackActually the full titulary of the pharaoh in hieroglyphs with transliteration and translation is in the article: go to the infobox, on the right of the "Royal Titulary" there is a button "[Show]". Click on it and everything will appear in the infobox. This is true for all pharaoh articles so now you can browse them all, even the scarcely attested rulers of intermediary period and you will see what is known of their titularies appear. The problem of not spotting the [Show] button is recurrent. I have been aware of it since several years and tried to propose technical solutions to make the [Show] button more prominent in the infobox. I got agreement at some point from the community to at least make [Show] appear in bold font but my technical abilities meant I did not succeed in making that work. Indeed it is the infobox source code that has to be updated.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! But now I think that there is a serious problem with the organisation of the infobox? We see three brown bars, the first two of which are obviously highlighting headings. "Pharao", for example, is the heading for the related information "Reign", "Coregency" … So of course, I would assume that "Royal titulary" is a heading too, and for the points that we see ("Consort", "Children"). Of course, that doesn't make sense. But it is seriously misleading the reader, which I think is the reason why the "show" button is basically invisible (because it is simply not expected). An easy solution would be to just show the full titulary section by default (there should be some "uncollapse=TRUE" parameter available somewhere, I hope)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack This parameter would affect all infoboxes in all pharaoh articles if we update the infobox source code. I think this solution had been proposed when this was discussed a couple of years ago but the issue is that this seriously disrupts the layout of many articles where the infobox becomes overly large as compared to the main text. I don't know if I can force the infobox to be uncollapsed in this article alone, I don't think this is possible?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to move the "Royal titulary" to the bottom of the infobox, that would make it much more obvious that there is something to extend. But I see that changes to the infobox are not something we can decide on in a FAC review, and that this point is therefore not actionable at the moment. So we have to leave it like this, it seems. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that there is something wrong this infobox layout, your question keeps coming up in FAC reviews/DYK reviews etc. when a pharaoh article is presented. I am convinced that the majority of reader simply miss this out completely. To solve the issue we need to raise it again ( I don't remember where I asked this a few years back, I can figure it out). Once the community has voted we can do something, but then I remember that I got lost in the source code. Because this was not as simple as editing a wiki page. This was a true source code. Your idea of moving the titulary to the bottom is a good possibility. I will see if I can come back to the discussion we had then.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack I found the discussion again it is here. I can try again to edit the code !Iry-Hor (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the source code guy some help again this time I am decided to succeed. I will try to replace [Show] by [Click to show] as was agreed at the time.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe the "Click to show" will make it more obvious. However, one drawback is that we loose consistency (the other info boxes, including those at the bottom of your article, all use "show"). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry once I understand how to edit the infobox source code I can update it the way we see best.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack That's it, I have done what was possible: the infobox now has the [Show] button on the left (I cannot change its content because it calls a program which is used by all infoboxes and collapsible boxes so that would impact most of Wikipedia). I added a header "Informations" to show that the titulary header is not that of the below informations. I hope this answers your request.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for longer, I think the "show" button is better placed on the right side, because this is consistent with all other boxes. I don't think that having it on the left will make it any more obvious. But this is only my opinion, it won't affect my vote on this FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I cannot change anything else unfortunately in the infobox layout as this will appear as such in all infoboxes everywhere and would be reverted immediately. I can put it back on the right though but I would prefer to give it some time on the left to see what people say, if they find it more obvious. Then I will revert back to right if this had no positive impact.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: One weakness of the article I see is language, which needs improvement. One part of it is interpunctation; I think that a lot of sentences are missing commas. I am not a native speaker myself, but in some cases I am quite sure that we need them; examples follow:
Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ankhesenpepi was a daughter of the nomarch of Abydos Khui and his wife Nebet whom Pepi I made into a vizier during his reign – here, I think it should be "nomarch of Abydos, Kuhi, and his wife Nebet, whom"
Done and sentence shortened and clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merenre could also be the father of queen Iput II another wife of Pepi II. – comma after "Iput II"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • These include an alabaster vessel (inventory E 23140b) and ivory box (inventory N. 794) both in the Louvre Museum; – comma behind "794)"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merenre appointed Qar nomarch of Edfu
I don't understand what you propose, or at least I am not sure. If I put a comma between "Qar" and "nomarch" then it changes the sentence's meaning I think, because I want to say that Merenre made Qar into a nomarch of Edfu. It seems to me that if I put a comma then "nomarch of Edfu" becomes an epithet of Qar rather than what Merenre made him into.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • overseer of priests, Qar – comma behind "Qar"
Changed the whole sentence was changed following another reviewer's comment.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khui and Nebet's son, Merenre's uncle Djau served – comma behind "Djau" if the intended meaning is as I think.
Done you are right.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a full sister in – never read a formulation like this, but I might be wrong. Please double-check.
Changed to "Princess Neith was Merenre's full sister"
  • Vivienne Callender observes that Neith's titles in relation to Merenre are now damaged and here precise relation to Merenre cannot be ascertained. – I don't understand. In the sentence before, you gave the information "full sister" as fact, and now, this relation cannot be ascertained?
Changed and clarified I compltely changed the pararaph to : "Princess Neith was Merenre's full sister. The archaeologist Gustave Jéquier has proposed that Neith was first married to Merenre then to Pepi II, explaining the absence of her tomb near that of Merenre as would be expected of a royal spouse. The Egyptologist Vivienne Callender observes however that among Neith's titles presented in her tomb, those referring to her relation with Merenre are now illegible. Consequently, Callender states that whether or not she was married to Merenre cannot be ascertained beyond doubt". So it is known that she is a full sister of Merenre, but whether she was married to him remains uncertain.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merenre's aunt and queen Ankhesenpepi II[note 2] who married Pepi I was also married to Merenre – I am confused here; doesn't "Merenre's queen" already imply that she was married to him?
Fixed yes you are right. I changed to : "Sixth dynasty royal seals and stone blocks found at Saqqara demonstrate that Merenre's aunt Ankhesenpepi II, who married Pepi I, was also married to Merenre. She is the mother of the future pharaoh Pepi II.".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this indirectly indicates that Merenre I might have been Pepi II's father rather than Pepi I, as had been hitherto held by a majority of Egyptologists. – Is this now consensus? If not, it this claim should better be attributed to the particular egyptologist rather than presenting it as fact?
Done I precised that this is a claim by Philippe Collombert. I do not know if this makes a consensus now but there were already a number of Egyptologists in favor of Collombert's view
  • but also in inscriptions and small artefacts bearing his name. "through" instead of "in"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as follows: 2361–2355 BC, 2310–2300 BC, 2287–2278 BC, 2285–2279 BC, 2283–2278 BC, 2283–2269 BC, 2263–2257 BC, 2260–2254 BC, 2255–2246 BC, 2252–2242 BC, 2235–2229 BC, 2227–2217 BC, 2219–2212 BC. – but this is pure data and not semantic text that a human can read. Better move to a footnote?
Of course I quite agree ! This was in a footnote originally (see e.g. other FA pharaoh articles I wrote, this is always in a footnote). I moved this back in the text because another reviewer commented that there were too many footnotes. What should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptologists: Shaw and Nicholson, Verner, Allen, Altenmüller, Málek Sowada, Rice, Krauss, Lehner and Hornung give him nine to eleven years; while Baer Spalinger von Beckerath Wright and Pardee, Clayton, Brovarski, Dodson and Hilton, Strudwick and Baker – Do we need all these names? This is quite tedious to read and not really of interest for the general reader. Some of them lack commas, too.
Partial answer. So I added the missing commas. The issue with the names is that at FAC for pharaoh articles I keep on being asked who precisely said what, that is if I say something like "some Egyptologists credit him with six years of reign" then I might have troubles because of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. I would like to have this in a footnote but as above a reviewer said there are too many footnotes.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with that reviewer regarding the number of footnotes, I think these names are simply too much, regardless if in the text or in a footnote. They do not help the general reader. If there are that many names, I don't think we have a problem with attribution. I personally would just say "Some egyptologists", or pic the most important/prominent study as example "such as xxx". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Done, I kind of picked a (bad?) middle ground: I wrote "some" and "others" in the sentence, and added footnotes with the names. The reviewer who pointed out the number of footnotes hasn't responded since April anyway. I also decided to put the dates back in footnotes as I agree with you that this is not meant to be in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Verner, Merenre may have been appointed coregent by his father Pepi I in order to secure him the succession to the throne following a conspiracy. – But that was already mentioned? So it just means "Verner thinks the same"?
Changed of course you are right this was already said. I changed to "The Egyptologists Jaromir Málek and Miroslav Verner agree with this analysis; Verner adds that Merenre acceded to the throne at an early age and died young."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the coregency remains uncertain, lacking any definite proof. The hypothesis of a coregency – Repetitive wording.
Fixed I completely changed to "The existence of the coregency remains uncertain, lacking any definite proof. For Vassil Dobrev and Michel Baud, who analysed the royal annals of the South Saqqara Stone, Merenre directly succeeded his father in power. In particular, the legible parts of the annals bear with no traces in direct support of an interregnum or coregency."
  • The motivations behind such changes is – "are"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motivations behind such changes is not clear, – I think this needs an ; instead of the ,
Done. Actually the sentence was cut into two following another reviewer's comments: "The motivations behind such changes are not clear. Either an attempt was made at improving the provincial administration or the goal was to disperse powerful nobles throughout the realm, away from the royal court."Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He later served Pepi II – "He" should refer to Idi, not Merenre?
Done yes. I changed "He" by "Idi".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Seth he offered a lost number of oxen in the snwt-shrine, a double sanctuary flanked by stelae, one side of which concerned Lower Egypt, the other Upper Egypt. – I don't understand why the sanctuary is described here; did he built it? A more useful information would be the location of the sanctuary.
The sanctuary location is unknown, the sanctuary is described following a question on this when Pepi I was at FAC because it is otherwise impossible to know what a snwt-shrine is. I removed the whole bit on the shrine to lightened the sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the discovery of cylinder seal – "a cylinder seal"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • by his fater the lector priest Iri, l – what does "fater" mean?
Fixed it was a typo, I meant "father".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • war against Tjemehu people, – "the Tjemehu people"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack thank you for your comments, I have addressed them now and am looking forward to more ! Note, I have edited also the remainder of the text, adding commas, cutting sentences etc. I hope this will improve your reading of the remaining sections. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jens Lallensack, do you have more comments for now ? I am sorry to ask again, this is because I fear the article would fail at FAC if it does not have enough completed reviews.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was travelling but just arrived home today. I will have a look asap. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pyramid texts comprise hundreds of utterances that could moved – "could be moved"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The doors of the horizon are opened, its bolts slid back. – I don't understand. This is a quote from the pyramid texts directly, right? But what does it have to do with the "transfiguration of the king", and why is this particular sentence selected? I mean, what am I supposed to learn from it, what is the point?
Removed Well that is an example from this section of the pyramid texts, the door of the horizon are opened because the king passes through them while being transfigured into a god. I guess this is far from clear at this point. I have removed the example.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, as a reader, would be interested in knowing how much (percentage) of the Pyramid Texts in this pyramid are preserved.
Unfortunately I do not know, and the sources I have access to do not say it. The complete publication of the texts was made recently but I don't have access to it. Also the percentage depend on what you count relatively to: you mean the percentage of preserved texts in this pyramid ? or relatively to all texts ? Because the texts are not exactly the same from pyramid to pyramid.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the case of Qar, – please check if this sentence works as intended. I assume the following list are the nomarchs that acted as overseers of the cult of Merenre?
Yes that is what I meant to say.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "This was the case with"? Or maybe it needs to be reformulated completely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed I wrote: "In the mid Sixth Dynasty, nomarchs were overseer of the priests of such cults. For instance, Qar, nomarch of Edfu and Gegi, nomarch of the Thinite nome, were "instructor of the priests of the pyramid `Merenre appears and is beautiful'; Heqaib, nomarch of the first nome of Upper Egypt under Pepi II, was "leader of the phyle of the pyramid of Merenre"."
  • known by name including Iarti and his son Merenreseneb – needs a comma behind "name"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Menankhpepy lived in Ninth[226] or Eleventh[227] Dynasties, – "lived during the"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various theories have been proposed by scholars – I think you mean "hypotheses", not "theories".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your review ! I have addressed all your comments to the best of my abilities, including your latest responses to older comments (tell me if I missed something).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I am supporting now (but see one very small open point above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Thank you for your support. I have updated the sentence with Qar. See my answer above.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Just spotted this. Apols for being so late to the table. A fine article, and I have very few quibbles at first reading. From an initial canter-through for typos etc:

  • Spelling: mostly in BrE – honoured, chiselled, sceptre, analysed, organised, kilometres, harbour – but a couple of Americanisms have crept in: centers and centered.
Fixed should all be BrE now.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coregency" – the Oxford English Dictionary would have us hyphenate this as "co-regency"
Done where possible (i.e. outside of the infobox).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referring to her relation with Merenre" – I'd expect either "to her relation to" or "to her relations with"
Fixed I wrote "to her relation to".Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "egyptologist/Egyptologist" – you should standardise on capitalising or not throughout.
Done capitalized throughout (corrected one instance).Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from an harbour" – as the noun is aspirated the indefinite article should be "a" rather than "an"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "administred from Saqqara or Memphis" – should be "administered"
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The box, iventory N. 794" – "inventory"
Well spotted ! Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "von Bissing" and "von Beckerath" – I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I think German surnames with the prefix "von" are indexed as, e.g. "Karajan, Herbert von" rather than "von Karajan, Herbert"
Changed throughout in the main text, as well in the reference order and style in the sfn templates.11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a proper read-through for content and add any additional comments shortly. – Tim riley talk 17:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments on the text, down to the end of the Reign section
  • "She is the mother of the future pharaoh Pepi II" – unless the use of the present tense when referring to dead people is a convention in archaeological writing I'd be inclined to write "was" rather than "is"
I always wondered what is best on this issue. My question is: does someone cease to be someone else's relative at death ? I mean my mother will still be my mother once dead and so the present tense would signify the enduring nature of that relationship, determined at birth. That said I have no issue per say putting a past tense here, it is more of a deeper question on the meaning of relationships and death here. I recognize that the past tense is often used orally when describing a dead person's activities or belonging but not their state of relationship to the speaker. "My father was an artist" for example could be said of someone's father after death; but also definitely "He is my father" would be said in front of a family photograph showing the deceased. EDIT: perhaps this has to do with stages of mourning ? But my question remains: in what grammatical tense should being the mother/father/son/sibling be stated after death ? Because, to me, Pepin of Herstal is still Charles Martel's father albeit quite a dead one.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Having mentioned the point I'm happy to leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all in the British museum" – capital M, please.
Done. As a true chauvinist French I unconsciously put a capital M to "Musée du Louvre" but omitted the capitalization in the case of the British Museum...Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a similar vessel from Elephantine now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (inventory CG 18694)" – careful with WP:DATED here. The Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza will open (eventually) and many things now or formerly in the old museum will be moved there. Might be as well to keep an eye on your various FAs to check whether mentions of artefacts in the old museum need to be updated.
Fixed Ok that is a important observation, I do not know where the artefact is now so I updated the sentence to say what the source says, namely that it was there in ... 1907. Ok it is a bit dated but I don't have more recent infos...Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A prudent move, I think. (I hope the old museum doesn't become neglected: it's such a gorgeous building – by a French architect, of course!) Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Turin Canon ... likely records Merenre I in the fifth column" – in BrE, for no reason I can explain, we don't write or even say "likely" in such contexts, but "probably".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his name as well as those of his predecessor and successor are illegible" – a nasty little English grammatical trap: although you are writing about more than one name, grammatically only "his name" is the subject of the sentence, and a singular "is legible" is required. (If you want a plural verb you need to replace "as well as" with "and".)
Fixed Ok wow I did not know this rule/trap, thanks I updated with the singular form as I quite like the "as well as" conjunction.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this count was perhaps biennial, occurring every two years" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice here? If it was biennial then by definition it occurred every two years.
Definitely yes but few people know what biennial means (biannual is more common and often confused) so I was asked in a past FAC to put the definition of biennial to clarify this immediately. I propose to keep it that way as this would also help the reader with understanding the sources.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean! I find the title of the Venice Biennale a useful memory-jogger for distinguishing between biannual and biennial, but that's a bit off the beaten track for many people, no doubt, and I withdraw my objection to the repetition as it makes the point clear. Tim riley talk 12:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More shortly. I'm enjoying this. Tim riley talk 10:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments !Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments

Sincere apologies for the delay in returning to the review. No excuses – it was merely senescent forgetfulness. Not much else to add, and these few concluding points are so minor that I am happy to support without further delay the elevation of this article to FA.

  • "Two rock reliefs depict the king ... the earliest of which" – I'm sorry to be pedantic, but you can't have the earliest of two: it's the earlier.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a traders caravan" – I think I'd make this a plural possessive: "a traders' caravan"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reached an height of" – another one where we Anglo-Saxons aspirate a word starting in "h" so that it's "a height" rather than "an height"
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovered by the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero at the end of the nineteenth century, the full publication of the texts from the pyramid of Merenre was only completed in 2019" – this is a dangling modifier: it was the texts, rather than the full publication that Maspero discovered.
Done you are of course quite right. I have changed the sentence to Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "problems with the railroads" – "railways" in BrE
  • "This perhaps perdured" – it did what? Endured or persisted, but I don't think you can roll the two into one.
Fixed my apologies this is another example of a French word which I thought existed in English as well. Funnily in French it is "endure" which does not exist, while "persister" and "perdurer" are both quite right.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first rate article, and I have enjoyed reading and reviewing it. As far as my inexpert judgement can take me, it is comprehensive, well and widely sourced, beautifully illustrated and an all-round crackingly good read. Very pleased to add my support, and I look forward to more from Iry-Hor. – Tim riley talk 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Thank you for your comments and support.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by A. Parrot (Support)

[edit]

The sources look to be appropriately formatted, barring some small corrections I made myself. Most are impeccable Egyptological sources, and the handful that are not are used appropriately.

I spot-checked ten citations, and while most were fine, I found a few problems. (Citation numbers are those that applied at the time I made this comment.)

  • Citation 91a: Bárta describes the Egyptian ideology of kingship but does not say that "the emphasis on a single individual holder follows" from it.
Fixed, I think what I conveyed with this sentence is in the source, I clarified as follows: "The emphasis on a single individual holder follows from the Ancient Egyptians' perception of the king as having [an exclusive relationship with the gods, controlling religious benefits and owning the whole of Egypt]" now the bit in square brackets is an explicit quote from the source. I think that the word "exclusive" implies that there can only be a single individual holder of the title, hence my word "emphasis". Do you think this is fine ? I am trying to avoid copying the source entirely and still convey Barta's idea.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 207: The wording "texts calling for the king's aggregation with the gods" would be better supported if the citation encompassed page 106 as well. "Aggregation" is Hays's wording, but it still comes across as odd, and it might be clearer if expressed as "joining the company of the gods" or something like that.
Done I added p. 106 and updated the sentence as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a citation-related problem, but similar to the second bullet point, I think "utterances that could be moved relatively to one-another or even exchanged between groups of inscriptions" could be worded more clearly. I'll try to come up with a revised wording when I have time to do more spot-checks late tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I could write "The Pyramid Texts are made of hundreds of utterances organised in groups of inscriptions, yet the utterances could be moved relatively to one-another within a group and even exchanged between groups." A. Parrot let me know what you think.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: "…yet in different copies the utterances could be in varying position within a group and exchanged between groups."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked ten more citations and came up with a couple more points:

  • 83g: Lehner says the mummy has not been "properly" studied, which is somewhat different from saying it has not been studied since Smith's examination.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23a: The sentence about Pepi II's parentage remains strange. I can't check any of the sources for it except Clayton, but the only part of the sentence that Clayton supports is the age of Pepi II upon his accession; he assumes Pepi II was Merenre's brother. Why is this source included here, and why is the part of the sentence that describes Collombert's arguments not cited to Collombert?
Fixed ok so I had garbled the position of the references in the sentence, probably during a rewriting of this part of the article. here is what I propose: "The Egyptologist Philippe Collombert observes[Collombert 2018] that since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade, and given that one source states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six,[Clayton 1994] then this indirectly indicates that Merenre I, rather than Pepi I, was Pepi II's father,[Brand 2002][Kanawati 2003][Collombert 2011] as had been hitherto favoured by many Egyptologists.[Collombert 2018]". So Collombert makes some of his observation in his 2018 source (note: I have added link to the pdf of the source), then I cite Clayton for the 6 years age at accession, then I cite Brand, Kanawati and Collombert 2011 who say that Merenre is Pepi II's father, finally I cite again Collombert 2018 as he states "Pepy I remains the one favored by many researchers."Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the final clause, "…as had been hitherto favoured by many Egyptologists", is unclear, and this complex sentence should probably be split. Perhaps Egyptologists' previous preference for Pepi I should be described first, followed by Collombert's arguments. E.g.: "Many Egyptologists favour Pepi I as the father of Pepi II. But Philippe Collombert argues…" A. Parrot (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice wording! Here is what is now in the article: "Many Egyptologists favour Pepi I as the father of Pepi II. But the Egyptologist Philippe Collombert observes that since historical sources agree that Merenre's reign intervened between those of Pepi I and Pepi II and lasted for around a decade, and given that one source states that Pepi II acceded to the throne at the age of six, then this indirectly indicates that Merenre I, rather than Pepi I, was Pepi II's father. This opinion is shared by the Egyptologists Naguib Kanawati and Peter Brand".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some general but finicky points: when more than one citation appears together, it's preferable to have them arranged in ascending order; and I think notes are more visible when they appear after citations. A. Parrot (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed throughout ! Thanks A. Parrot for your comments so far !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Baud, 2006. Could we have an ISBN, the page range and a publisher location please.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bongioanni and Croce, 2001. An ISBN and a publisher location please.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Callender, 1993. Needs the publisher location.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Couyat and Montet, 1913. Needs an OCLC. (Hint - 19833807.)
Done thanks for the hint !Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild All done !Iry-Hor (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2023 [22].

Al-Adid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last Fatimid caliph, who came to the throne as a child and died at the age of twenty, in 1171. He was mostly a puppet ruler, while military strongmen vied for the vizierate, and Egypt was threatened by both the Crusaders and the Zengids of Syria. His last vizier was none other than Saladin, who over time dismantled the Fatimid caliphate and its Isma'ili institutions and after al-Adid's death established the Sunni Ayyubid dynasty, under himself. I have written the article from almost scratch over the last few years as part of an effort to eventually bring all Fatimid caliphs to FA, and it passed GA in February. It is a fairly comprehensive account of al-Adid's reign, though not as much of al-Adid himself, as he only appears intermittently on the scene during this time. I hope that reviewers will enjoy it. Any feedback for further improvement is, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Looks interesting, will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of any relevant places or people to show? Looks a bit bare in places.
    • I am looking, but not much, unfortunately. Saladin is represented by the coin in the infobox, I have not been able to find any historical depiction of al-Adid or a coin from his reign (I refuse to use this image), or even a medieval miniature depicting some of these events (at least in Commons). There are some photos of monuments of Cairo, but they are not relevant to the text.
I can see why you wouldn't want to use that image, but I'll concede that at least the unretouched version[23] looks better and less garish. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both images are ultimately highly ahistorical, contain nothing that uniquely identifies al-Adid (except perhaps the Fatimid mizalla, and that is highly debatable), and are devoid of any encyclopedic or artistic merit. I could equally well use a stock image of a generic 'caliph' instead. There are some images available of his coins (e.g. [24] or [25]) but they are under copyright (or at least copyright is not clear enough to allow reuse).
  • The intro looks a bit funny now, first a very short paragraph followed by a massive WP:wall of text. Any way this could be balanced better, at least by breaking up the big paragraph?
    • Have expanded a bit and split it at the beginning of Saladin's vizierate.
  • "provided by Ibn Khallikan" present him.
    • Done
  • "The official doctrine of Isma'ilism" Could be explained this is a Shia variant.
    • Good point, added.
  • "was noticed by its Sunni rivals, the Abbasids" State where they were based?
    • Done
  • "he Abbasid caliph issued a diploma" Name him?
    • Done
  • "As al-Fa'iz had no offspring" Almost seems self-evident since you stated he was only 11? Is there a more elegant way to put this?
    • Rephrased to 'Lacking a direct heir'
  • "the underage al-Adid was elevated to the throne" How old was he?
    • Added
  • "Soon after, the new vizier suppressed the last revolt by a claimant of the Nizari line" State if this is also Fatimid.
    • Done.
  • Isma'ili is linked at second instead of first mention.
    • Removed the second link, the first is still in the 'Origin' section.
  • Link Kurdish.
    • Done.
  • Link eunuch? It has a section about the practice under the Fatimids.
    • Good point, done.
  • "awarded him the title al-Malik al-Awhad ('the Singular Prince')" But doesn't Malik mean King?
    • Can be translated both ways (in the sense of a King being a prince/monarch), here I followed the source. But in order to avoid confusion and be consistent, I changed it to King.
  • "His death on 13 September 1171 only sealed the demise of the Fatimid Caliphate." State age at which he died?
    • Done
Thank you FunkMonk for your time and very helpful comments. Constantine ✍ 19:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Al Ameer

[edit]

This is very comprehensive and well-written article about al-Adid and the epilogue of the Fatimid Caliphate. I made some copyedits—please revise if any were unhelpful. I will give the article a further look tomorrow, but as of now I’m grasping at straws to find deficiencies. Al Ameer (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fourteenth caliph", "24th imam", "13th-century", etc. Recommend consistent style, though unsure if this is a requirement.
    • It is, MOS:NUMERAL. Have homogenized to spelled-out forms.
  • Overuse of "regime"?
    • I agree, partly. My use of regime was to emphasize the distinction between the Isma'ili-Fatimid ideological and institutional framework and that of the Egyptian state, whose framework largely was carried over into the Ayyubid era. Similar to how one would differentiate the 'Nazi regime' from the 'German state'. I have therefore reverted some of the regime -> state changes, where most appropriate.
  • Do we have the name of that Nizari claimant to the throne?
    • Added.
  • Define the Maghreb for unfamiliar readers i.e. "(western North Africa)" Al Ameer (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Thanks for the excellent edits, Al Ameer son. Take your time with reviewing :) Constantine ✍ 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of nitpicks. Well done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Coming soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...vizier Salim ibn Masal installed al-Hafiz's youngest son, the 16-year-old Isma'il, as caliph with the regnal name al-Zafir bi-Amr Allah..." I think giving al-Zafir bi-Amr Allah's reign dates would be useful here, like you did with al-Hafiz li-Din Allah.
    • Normally I would, but al-Zafir's date of accession is (indirectly) mentioned right before, and it is immediately followed by an explicit mention of the year of his death, so it is rather redundant.
  • "...by then vizier, Abbas ibn Abi'l-Futuh" Should there be a "the" before "then"?
    • Changed to 'his'
  • I think inserting a note somewhere about all the Islamic religious factions would be of use.
    • Can you be more specific as to what should be explained? I have to assume a basic level of knowledge about at least the Sunni/Shia being two rival factions of Islam, and that people will follow the links, otherwise the footnotes will be massive.
Sure I can elaborate. As a student of world history, Sunni vs Shia was been engrained into my brain permanently, but Hafizi Isma'ilism is an unfamiliar term to me. Maybe a breif explination of the difference of that from Sunni/Shia would make the article easier to navigate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: I tried it with a footnote, but explaining the differences just kept getting bigger and bigger (Hafizi is a branch of Isma'ilism, but what is the relationship of Isma'ilism to Shi'a Islam, etc). Have for now clarified in the lede that Hafizi Isma'ilism is a branch of Shi'a Islam. That should IMO provide enough context, in that a) Hafizi Isma'ilism is Shi'a, hence opposed by Sunnis, and b) rival to other Shi'a branches like the Twelvers.
I do not see the footnote? Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to write up a concise footnote, that was my point. I really want to avoid the wall-of-text footnotes I used in al-Hafiz... Constantine ✍ 14:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow when these have been completed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, Unlimitedlead. Done or responded above. Constantine ✍ 19:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog, I am awaiting a response about the Islamic religious factions before I continue any further comments. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead and Gog the Mild: I've replied above. Open to debate this further, but if I can avoid the huge footnotes from other Fatimid articles, I'll be very happy. Be that as it may, can we continue with the review? There's surely other issues to uncover... Constantine ✍ 20:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Al-Fa'iz was of sickly disposition, and died on 22 July 1160..." Is this comma necessary?
    • Removed.
  • "As a result" is somewhat vague; maybe it could be changed to "As a result of the plaucity of information on al-Adid..."
    • Indeed, added.
  • "personal description" What is meant by this? A physical description?
    • Yes, changed.
  • "Amalric (r. 1163–1174),seriously" Spacing error here
    • Fixed.
  • I am seeing the usage of the word "momentous" quite often, and I am not sure I am comfortable with it.
    • Rephrased both cases.
  • "Shirkuh's unexpected death on 23 March 1169..." How did he die? The political intrigues of this article could suggest an assassination, but if he died naturally, that should be said.
    • Added cause.
  • "...the vizierate is declared as hereditary..." Why is this in the present tense?
    • No reason, fixed.
  • " As al-Adid's vizier, Saladin, a Sunni who had come into Egypt with a Sunni army as the representative of Nur al-Din's militantly Sunni regime, now found himself in charge of a nominally Isma'ili state, and even of the Isma'ili religious establishment (da'wa)" This entire sentence is a run-on.
    • Indeed, have rewritten this.
  • "Historian Michael Brett" False title?
    • Fixed.
  • "This policy" Policy of what?
    • Rephrased for recision
  • Why are none of al-Adid's issue in the infobox?
    • Good question. Added now.

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I will support this nomination now. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2023 (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) 11 June 2023 [26].

Takin' It Back

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back. After the disastrous rollout of her third album, which was delayed for several years and rewritten four times, Trainor successfully incorporated TikTok into her promotional strategies and achieved a comeback. She trusted her instincts in the studio and took a more spontaneous approach with Takin' It Back. While critically the album went under the radar, it produced the bonafide hit "Made You Look". Happy Mother's Day, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Comments from Heartfox

[edit]
Addressed commentary moved to talk--NØ 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • This is so nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part (Trainor worked with producers including Federico Vindver, Gian Stone, Kid Harpoon, and Tyler Johnson, to create it.), I am not sure the "to create it" part is necessary.
  • It has been a while since I looked at an album article that had a deluxe rerelease so apologies in advance if this question is obvious. Should the "Mother" single release be represented in some way in the infobox?
  • Deluxe singles have been represented in infoboxes when the deluxe edition was released the same day as the standard, e.g. 1989, but the template seems clear that this shouldn't be done on re-releases.
  • I am not sure about this sentence: (Her collaborators would previously dismiss ideas she had conceived prior to sessions, but the material worked on for Takin' It Back was started by Trainor alone.) I understand the meaning, and it is solid information that is worth including in the article, but for whatever reason, I just found the wording off. I had to read a few times. It might just be me, but I would look at this sentence more to see if revisions would improve. Apologies for being vague about it as I cannot quite put my finger on it.
  • It's definitely not just you! Hopefully I was able to improve this a little bit.
  • For this part (minimally employs electronic elements), would it be beneficial to include a link to electronic music?
  • Motown was recently deleted so now it is a red link. There is nothing wrong with red links, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
  • Apologies again as this is nitpick-y, but "elements" is used twice in a similar context for two sentences in a row: (Its production incorporates digital elements and modern R&B beats.) and (The fourth track, "Don't I Make It Look Easy", has percussion instrumentation and R&B elements). I would avoid that sort of repetition if possible.
  • It might be helpful to link girlboss here, (typical narratives about women being "girlboss[es]"), as while it may be a common phrase now, I could see some readers wanting more context for it.
  • Would it be possible to link debonair horns? I have never heard of these kinds of horns before so I think a link may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader like myself. I might just be dumb though lol.
  • Debonair is just an adjective here, it's referring to regular horns :)
  • At the end of the "Composition" section, I'd clarify in the first sentence about "Mother" (i.e. "Mother" is a doo-wop-influenced song) rather than implying it as part of a sentence at the end of the paragraph. I just found the shift from discussing the standard edition's final track to this part a little jarring.
  • Was there any coverage on "Special Delivery" and "Grow Up", like on the lyrics or composition?
  • None, unfortunately. The Rolling Stone article came the closest but even that barely mentioned the names.
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, the "Mother" music video is mentioned, while the ones for "Bad for You" and "Made You Look" are not so I would be consistent with whether music videos are discussed in this section or not. On a similar topic, I am unsure about the sentence in general (Kris Jenner appears in the music video.). I get its inclusion as that seems to be one of the more notable aspects of the video, but the current wording makes it seem a tad trivial if that makes any sense.
  • The "Bad for Me" and "Made You Look" music videos were very critically low-profile releases. Jenner's appearance in the "Mother" video is the primary reason for the song's notability and garnered enough coverage to warrant a mention in my opinion, weightage-wise. I've reworked the sentence keeping your comments in mind.
  • Understandable. Unfortunately, "Bad for Me" faded completely, while the focus for "Made for You" was its popularity on TikTok. Thank you for the clarification here. I have looked at the other album FAs, such as 1989, and it is best to keep the more specific information on the songs to the respective song articles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid using "thought" twice in close proximity for (Piatkowski thought the album) and (Renowned for Sound's Max Akass thought it).
  • It might just be a personal preference so take this with a grain of salt, but I would end the paragraph with the Piatkowski review as it is more mixed than the others. That way, the paragraph goes from positive reviews and ends with a more mixed one, which serves as a bridge to the following paragraph about negative reviews.
  • I am not sure what to think of the "Commercial performance" section as it is a single and rather short paragraph. I could see this information being collapsed into the "Release and promotion" section rather easily.
  • I am not sure about "Release, promotion and commercial performance" as a section title, and the current section order of release→reception→commercial performance makes chronological sense in my opinion. The current arrangement is my preference.
  • The section title would not need to be changed. Pod (The Breeders album) puts the chart information in the "Release" section. Chart performance and critical reviews are not really connected in my opinion, but I think it is a matter of personal preference. I can understand your rationale, and I think it boils down to personal preference. Matangi (album) has a similar structure with a single-paragraph "Commercial performance" section so I believe it is permissible for a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of the comments above are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I catch everything. I think you have done a wonderful job and a majority of my comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. To be clear, I am focused primarily on the prose. On a side-note, I am surprised Trainor did not try promoting more singles from the standard edition after "Made You Look" blew up as I could see "Mama Wanna Mambo" getting a similar treatment. That being said, I understand the rationale behind "Mother". Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the very helpful review, Aoba47! If I am being completely honest I look forward to a review from you on any nomination I make, so I seriously appreciate it. Given Trainor's pregnancy and her current book tour, I guess I understand her decision to halt promotion despite the album potential.--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the very kind words. At the risk of sounding corny, I am just glad to help where I can. Thank you for the responses above (and I agree with your clarifications and explanations). When I am done with my review, would you like me to collapse my comments to prevent the FAC page from becoming too wordy? I do not imagine I will find anything major, but I still wanted to offer. I will do a few more read-throughs of the article tomorrow. I hope you are having a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two related questions about this part: (revolves around her pregnancy's impact, its complicated nature). Could you clarify what her pregnancy is impacting (such as Trainor as a whole, her health, her relationship, etc.) and what is meant by complicated nature (such as this a broader description of pregnancy as a whole or is it more specific to Trainor)?
  • I am not sure about this part, ("Shook" is about her impressive looks), specifically saying "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice. To be clear, this is not meant as a critique as Trainor as I would not think it is entirely appropriate to say someone has "impressive looks" in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. presenting it like a fact).

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once my final two comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up comments, Aoba47. I've reworded to address both points. With regard to the first point, I have now gone for simpler wording since the interview did not have more details to clarify it.--NØ 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

[edit]

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the media review!--NØ 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent to me. "Caufield" is a typo. Are popculture.com and Max Akass high-quality reliable sources? Usual caveat about my unfamiliarity with entertainment sources applies here. Spot-check upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SR and catching the typo. The first source's usage is for an interview conducted with Trainor, a high-quality source WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of Background details. The Akass review is from a reputed publication whose editor has 20 years of industry experience..--NØ 12:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • I think self-acceptance is easily understood so it doesn't need to be linked in the lead and body.
  • She struggled while creating her third album on a label -- perhaps it should be with the label? Since she released her previous (all) major albums with the same label (Epic) I assume.
  • song "Title" attained viral popularity on video-sharing service -- went viral on the video-sharing service
  • Trainor believed her songwriting improved since having a caesarean section during the birth of her son. -- for this part, is there a rationale as to how her giving birth CS improved her songwriting vs a normal delivery? Suggestion: perhaps we can simplify and mention she believed her songwriting improved since giving birth to her son?
  • and a challenge where her therapist asked her to look at herself naked for five minutes. -- maybe simplify and say and a challenge from her therapist to look at herself...
  • Trainor's duties as a new mother and posting to social media. -- perhaps you can expand/specify the context of "posting to social media" in its lyrics

Great work, I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the incredible review as usual, Pseud 14! Should be all addressed ;)--NØ 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good to me and satisfied with the responses. Happy to support on prose. Thanks for the media review on my FAC and I'd appreciate anything re: prose, when you have time and interest. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch

[edit]

Claiming a spot, should have some comments up by this weekend. The Night Watch (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have much to say. The other reviewers have already looked at the important points, and anything further from me would be excessively nitpick-y. I will support based on prose. The Night Watch (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for stopping by!--NØ 09:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Prose-wise the article is in great shape. Some minor comments that catch my attention from the first read:

  • Ref titles are inconsistent between sentence case and title case. Could we make it consistent?
  • Should be consistent now.
  • I know that "Mother" is a deluxe-edition bonus track, but could we reasonably include it into the "Singles" section of the Infobox?
  • I've considered including it, but Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles states that songs that were added on as bonus tracks on re-releases should be excluded. The emphasis seems to be on release dates, and the album's release predates the release of "Mother" and the deluxe edition by around half a year.
  • I would consider grouping more than three citations into a bundle (i.e. "It predominantly has a doo-wop and bubblegum pop sound.[16][17][18]")
  • Took care of these. In cases where I thought bundling would not be appropriate, I used some other methods to eliminate three refs in a row.
  • I personally think the "[clause], V-ing" structure is not the most professional writing when "[clause], and [clause]" can do the work:
    • "She struggled while creating her third album with Epic Records, Treat Myself (2020), rewriting it four times" → "She struggled while creating ... and rewrote it four times"
    • "Takin' It Back minimally employs electronic elements, mainly comprising old-timey but contemporarily presented tracks." → "Takin' It Back minimally employs electronic elements and comprises mainly old-timey..."
  • Thanks for pointing this out. I fixed these.
  • Also some verbs here are not the best substitute for "said" (see MOS:SAID) i.e. "believed" which is used repeatedly here and there. Consider "wrote", "described" or "commented" which are neutral and more appropriate
  • Addressed as suggested.

That's all from me! I'm open to discussion if my points do not resonate :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this article, Ippantekina. I highly appreciate it after the lethargic process with this nomination. All done with one comeback. Cheers!--NØ 09:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments so far. I'm glad my comments turned out helpful, and regarding the song "Mother" I think your explanation is appropriate. Alas, after a closer look at the prose I have further comments. Of course I'm always open to discussion if you find any of the following points questionable, but I myself do believe these are worth raising to finesse the prose:

  • "She struggled while creating her third album with Epic Records, Treat Myself (2020)" how did she struggle? Personally? Artistically? Professionally?
  • Creatively, to adapt to trends, and commercially due to the underperformance of its singles. I believe "She creatively struggled while creating her third album" would be odd wording so I used the latter half of the sentence to imply this.
  • "Trainor announced her intention to pivot to its doo-wop sound" not sure if pivot is the right word choice. Also the lead and the sample's caption says that this album returns to the doo-wop sound of Title the album, which is not explicit in the prose (I do see reference to "Title" the song though)
  • The quote is "I'm doing more the doo-wop style, like my first album" so I've changed this to the album throughout.
  • "The people have spoken and I hear you." this quote is insubstantial imo because the bit explaining how "Title" went viral influenced Trainor's decision is sufficient already
  • Removed.
  • "The platform was highly influential on her creative process" can simply reuse TikTok (WP:ELEVAR)
  • Done.
  • "Is this trash or amazing? Is this garbage or is this dope?" ditto
  • Removed.
  • "her signature doo-wop sound" what makes doo-wop Trainor's signature sound?
  • This is attributed to Mozella. You can read the interview in the reference, where she describes doo-wop as "the Meghan Trainor sound". For clarification purposes, "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband" are doo-wop songs, so even in a general sense I wouldn't view this as a controversial statement... (Secondary sources using the terminology: [27][28][29])
  • "along with the 1950s, the album was influenced by Motown, Carole King's Brill Building music, and the 1970s" does this mean doo-wop is a genre associated with the 1950s? If so an explanation somewhere prior would be helpful
  • Doo-wop is wikilinked earlier in the article, and that article gets more into depth on how it gained popularity in the 1950s. 1950s is also linked and mentions doo-wop. An explanation beyond that would probably fall out of the scope of this article and isn't found in sources discussing this album directly.
  • Done.
  • "bringing back old-school music which featured more real instruments" I don't get what "real instruments" mean?
  • Musical instruments, as opposed to digital production
  • "an acoustic six-string guitar" I'm pretty sure a standard acoustic guitar has 6 strings so "six-string" is redundant here
  • Sorry, it was the source wording. Thanks for raising this point.
  • "the various identities and arenas women steer through" what do we mean by arenas here?
  • Changed to source wording "spaces"
  • "incorporating debonair horns and clinking piano riffs in its instrumentation"
  • Done.
  • "with a "glitter-ball disco pulse" " we need attribution for direct quotes (MOS:QUOTE)
  • Done.
  • "was serviced to hot adult contemporary radio stations" serviced?
  • "Impacted" now
  • "The former's lyrical themes revolve around motherhood and self-acceptance." circling back to the lead this is an interesting statement, but I'm not seeing it explicitly reprised in the prose. Also consider using the title Takin' It Back instead of "the former"
  • Pertains to "the subject matter revolves around her experiences with motherhood and embracing 'not [being] perfect all the time'" in the Background and development section, and done.

Hope these help! Ippantekina (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ippantekina. Once again, your review is really appreciated. Happy to help clarify anything else. Good luck with the "You Belong with Me" article - would really love to see a childhood classic get a FA --NØ 16:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the responses satisfactory Ippantekina?--NØ 07:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Fifteen minutes after I made the above request, user has gone on wikibreak for a whole week. From observation, their comments have covered all sections of the article that contain prose, and they stated "That's all from me" above.--NØ 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Since a number of subject matter experts have now been through the article and approved, I'd like to proceed to a new nomination in a while if that's okay.--NØ 05:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 6 June 2023 (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) 11 June 2023 [30].

Kingdom Two Crowns

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a strategy game made back in 2018. It’s the third game in a franchise called Kingdom, and it was the last one in which the original creator was involved. It basically replicates everything from the two previous games, except it made things slightly easier and gives you a way to permanently eradicate the monsters. Oh, and multiplayer was added too I guess. This article is relatively short, but it covers all the relevant information I could find about Development and Reception. Let’s see if I can make a Four Award out of this one. The Night Watch (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Kingdom Two Crowns features single-player and cooperative multiplayer," => "Kingdom Two Crowns features single-player and cooperative multiplayer modes,"
  • "Players control a mounted monarch who must build their kingdom, and defend it from monsters called the Greed" - no need for comma in the middle there
  • "with the monarch exploring and building during the day, and fighting the Greed at night" - or that one :-)
  • "causing a game over" => don't think "game over" is a noun, so "causing a game to end"....?
  • "they can encounter portals that spawn Greed, and treasure chests containing coins or gems" - again, comma not needed
  • "Kingdom Two Crowns can be played in single-player," => "Kingdom Two Crowns can be played in single-player mode"
  • "A game over only occurs" - again, not sure that "game over" is a noun, but maybe I am wrong.....?
  • "The studio said in 2020 that it was one of their main priorities supporting Two Crowns" => "The studio said in 2020 that supporting Two Crowns was one of their main priorities"
  • "adding a new one called "Trade Routes" - a new one what....?
  • Both notes need a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chris! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude just a follow-up ping. The Night Watch (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]

Coming soon. JOEBRO64 16:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64 Just a nudge. The Night Watch (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry—will try to post tomorrow JOEBRO64 22:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been extremely busy, so it probably won’t be up until tomorrow or Sunday JOEBRO64 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full review coming tomorrow. Apologies for the delay, it's been a bit hectic. JOEBRO64 00:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It's definitely a bit hectic for all of us right now with exams and all. The Night Watch (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article's in pretty great shape and I don't have much to say. Here's what stood out:

  • "... developed by Noio and Coatsink..." I think it's a little weird to introduce Noio by his pseudonym before introducing his actual name, the one we use for the rest of the article
  • Coatsink isn't mentioned in prose, while Stumpy Squid is only mentioned as developing the DLC. I'd clarify their roles in the development section
  • "Instead, the player continues as an "heir" to their partially destroyed realm." I think this needs clarification. What does the player do as an heir? Can they make their way back to monarchy?
  • I'm a little confused—is the Shogun campaign DLC that was launched alongside the main game? It's a little unclear at the moment.
  • I think the free update content should be moved to the gameplay section. I think it should still be mentioned the modes were added in updates, but I think it relates more to the gameplay than it does to the game's release.

This is all that stood out. Overall a well-done article, I'll come back once these are addressed. JOEBRO64 01:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Joe! I have addressed most of your comments. I added a source clarifying that Coatsink is a British development studio that helped van den Berg, and reworded the "heir" bit. The only thing I didn't change was the free update content, as there is quite too much of it I think to be included in Gameplay, and there are lots of articles that include this information in their Release sections. (e.g. Sonic Forces, BioShock 2, etc.) The Night Watch (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any other issues. Support JOEBRO64 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

As this will be my first FAR, I won't be giving a support/oppose, but I'm still happy to provide comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest adding a Use American English tag at the top (or other)
  • Series creator Thomas "Noio" van den Berg... Has a false title- something I only recently learned about (thanks Tim) -"the" should the present before "series creator", perhaps rephrasing to make it sound smoother (e.g. "The creator of the series, Thomas...")
  • I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but what is a "monarch"? Does it literally mean a creature that's also a head of state? Or is it using a synonym for monarch I'm unaware of? If it's the latter, a wikilink to Wikitionary may be useful
  • ...was mainly designed by Raw Fury co-founder Gordon van Dyke, with series creator Thomas... Two false titles
  • The wikilink on "the narrative" under Development can be removed since Infinity Blade is already linked
  • "Journalists" should not be capitalized under Reception
  • The rating box should contain only numbers and no stars per WP:VG/REC.
  • Cover art in the infobox needs a caption like "Cover art"

I'll check the reliability of the sources while I'm at it (using WP:VG/S and WP:RS/P for reference), as well as checking the refs are properly formatted

  • Ref 10 publisher can be wikilinked
  • Ref 19 needs publisher
  • Ref 24 has a via named, but no link is present; if there's no link available, the via is unnecessary
  • Ref 25 has "live" in the url-status box, but no archive link
  • While the pub of Ref 30 has no consensus on reliability, the only instances it's used is for review purposes, so I think it's ok

All the sources look good. That's all from me, this article is great! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MyCatIsAChonk, I believe that I have addressed your comments! I included Ref 30 because it includes a piece from Sean Martin, a journalist who has written for other outlets such as Eurogamer and PCGamesN. And Ref 24 includes the 'via' as part of the basic structure of the {{Cite journal}} template, and is included automatically if you list the source provider. I unfortunately cannot find the Prog article through Gale Academic OneFile anymore (removed for some reason?) but I would like to still list the provider where I originally found the magazine source. Oh, and the wikilink to narrative goes to the gameplay section of Infinity Blade, where it talks about the structure of the narrative that inspired the devs.
Anyway, I'll try and do a spot-check on Untitled Goose Game if time allows me today. If not, it'll probably be up sometime later this week. The Night Watch (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

[edit]

Both files are appropriately licensed. The screenshot is located in the Screenshots folder of the toolkit on Dropbox, however there seem to be five different posters in the Banners folder but it does not include the one currently used in the article.--NØ 14:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MaranoFan! I looked around for the source of the Promotional art (It was uploaded by someone other than myself) and added a URL to the only website I could find that provided this specific image. The Night Watch (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New link works fine!--NØ 06:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

[edit]
  • The sources all look reliable for the purposes they are used. This nomination passes my source review as well, just to be safe in case MyCatIsAChonk's analysis above isn't considered an SR.
  • "As the monarch explores, they can encounter portals that spawn Greed and treasure chests containing coins or gems" - The pronoun "they" is used for the monarch throughout the Gameplay section, is it possible to be more specific with the pronouns?
    • I chose 'they' because the monarch is randomly generated as either a king or a queen, and I thought that using both gendered pronouns instead of 'they' might become repetitive.
  • Kingdom (video game) is linked three times (MOS:DL)
  • removed a few links
  • Not sure "the narrative" needs a wikilink in the Development section.
  • Is it possible to use a full form of "co-op" or add a wikilink to a relevant article? As someone unfamiliar with video games, its meaning is not immediately obvious to me.
    • I added a wikilijk to cooperative multiplayer and added (co-op) in brackets to clarify that it is an abbreviation of cooperative multiplayer.
  • "adding a second monarch allowed for players to split their attention between multiple areas" - Also fine as "adding a second monarch allowed for players to split their attention between multiple areas"
  • The word "Conversely" could be removed from the introduction of the following sentence, since its removal isn't really detrimental and the claim made here isn't directly contradictory to the previous sentence.
    • Done
  • "Pocket Tactics's reviewer appreciated how the in-game progression reminded him of medieval rulers expanding their domains, writing that Two Crowns's combination of simplistic strategy with an aesthetic feel amounted to "a really smart kingdom management game" - Nitpick-y but I'd go for "Pocket Tactics's reviewer appreciated how the in-game progression reminded him of medieval rulers expanding their domains, and wrote that Two Crowns's combination of simplistic strategy with an aesthetic feel amounted to "a really smart kingdom management game"
If you liked this review, I would appreciate any comments on my current FAC.--NØ 13:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MaranoFan! I believe that I have addressed your comments. I will take a look at your FAC when I have a chance. The Night Watch (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: this has been open for about a month and a half, and I've addressed the comments of all the reviewers and responded to the Media and source reviews. Anything else needed? Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (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) 8 June 2023 [31].

The Kinks' 1965 US tour

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the disastrous tour of America that left the English rock band the Kinks banned from performing in the country for the next four years. Tkbrett (✉) 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Hello! Staking a claim since I enjoyed doing the GA review so much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was already pretty thorough in the GA review, but I note some quite a bit of revision since, so I'll go through again from the top.
  • "Page began co-managing the Kinks..." The opening sentence calls Page the personal manager. What's the relationship between that title and the other two co-managers?
    • I see that this is addressed further down but not sure if it should be consolidated.
      • I added a bit to that sentence to hopefully help things out, as the management situation was quite complicated and details go beyond the scope of this page. Kinks biographer Thomas M. Kitts writes that "The three managers and [the band's publishing firm] evolved into a complex entanglement that took years of litigation to sort out" (Kitts 2008, p. 33). In interviews over ensuing decades, Page regularly said that Wace and Collins did nothing besides collect their paycheques, while Wace and Collins basically said the exact same thing about Page. Kitts concludes: "With all the uncertainty and hecticness [sic] of those pre- and early Kinks days it is impossible for anyone to say who did what."
  • "the Kinks were initially the most popular of those groups, made up of bands like the Rolling Stones, the Yardbirds and Them." the grammar feels off here. The groups weren't made up of bands. Maybe shift the band list to earlier, something like " A second wave of British acts, including the Rolling Stones, the Yardbirds, and Them, entered the American charts in early 1965, and the Kinks were initially the most popular of these."
    • Yes, I agree. Fixed.
  • I still think the paragraph about sound quality and the lost guitar should be split, as they are different ideas
    • Split.
  • "advanced work" - would "advance work" be more correct?
    • Yes, fixed.
  • "The Kinks experienced regular fanaticism from their fans, many of whom were teenage girls." reads a bit oddly. A more natural phrasing might be something like "The Kinks' audience, many of whom were teenage girls, were prone to fanatical behavior" perhaps. A link to fan (person) might not hurt here either, rather than fanaticism
    • Your wording is much better. I think I'll avoid the linking though, as seems a bit like WP:OVERLINK.
  • Hilarious use of the pull quote from the Journal-Register
    • I found quite a few of these floating around, but I think this one works best because it conveys more than one idea: (1) the fanaticism which characterized the band's concerts and (2) the disdain and confusion the older generation held for the younger generation's music. Most quotations I have found only convey one of those thoughts.
  • I tweaked "for enjoyment" to "to amuse himself"; the first sounds like he's pestering Page to provide enjoyment (as in "take me to a movie I'm bored"), but the second makes it more clear that he's being annoying for the purpose of being annoying
    • I agree, yours is clearer.
  • I really have no additional gripes after this, the prose is clear and gets to the point without being boring
    • Thank you!
  • The kissing anecdote is so much funnier with the additional context
    • I thought so too.
  • "The Springfield show was organised by future serial killer John Wayne Gacy" WHAT
    • I was turning this bit around for a while because in current news articles or blogposts, it is often a point of emphasis or even the leading thought. But none of the band biographers really make a big deal of it because the band probably did not interact with Gacy at all, or if they did it was minimal. In a 2000 interview, bassist Pete Quaife said for the first time that Gacy invited the band to his home, and that they left after he gave them weird vibes, particularly his pushing drinks on the eighteen-year-old Dave Davies along with a weird smell in his house. Band biographers point out a few reasons to doubt this story. Mainly, it is entirely inconsistent with Gacy's known biography. As well, Quaife apparently developed a reputation for building up stories or even making things up in interviews. In a later interview, Ray mentioned the story but he made it clear that he never interacted with Gacy, thereby contradicting Quaife's point that the whole band was there. I think confining it to a note in this article was the best way to approach it. Besides, there's no place for it in the body, what with it being nothing more than an anecdote.
  • Good workaround for the absent set list

Another excellent piece of work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks so much Premeditated Chaos! I'm really glad to hear how much you have been enjoying these articles. Tkbrett (✉) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're just wonderfully unpredictable articles. Everyone in and around this band seems to be getting up to something bizarre every time you turn around and I'm so here for it. I'm a support on prose :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

[edit]

I've read a couple of older Kinks's biographies and never felt that their blacklisting in the US was adequately explained. This article definitely corrects that. It's very comprehensive and extensively referenced and, after several readings, I can't find any real issues. I do notice some overlinking that may be more personal preference. In the lead, linking to articles about The Kinks' 1965 tour of Australasia, Hong Kong and Singapore, The Kinks' 1965 UK tour, Denmark Productions Ltd. v Boscobel Productions Ltd., and The Kinks' 1969 North American tour seem to distract from what should be an overview and are better linked in the main body, where there is more context. Also, links to terms that most readers of an English-language encyclopedia should be familiar with or don't provide much useful additional information are in the lead and in the main body. These include concert tour, promoters, unions (2×, the following US union is already linked), cultural phenomenon, musical variety programmes, headliners, encore, Englishness, queers, miked, marquee, bill, fanaticism, clubs, communists, US Army, branch, music festival, and cult following. Again, this may reflect personal preference, but is something to consider. As per MOS:DTAB, accessibility may be improved by adding ! scope="row" to entries in the table. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ojorojo, I really appreciate your comments. I agree there were quite a few cases of over-linking and I have removed most of the ones you listed. The only ones I left were promoters (a specific profession people may not have knowledge of) and musical variety programmes (no teenager today knows what the hell these were). Regarding the red-linking in the lead, do you mean I should de-link them or remove mention of them all together? I think removing the links would be appropriate while leaving the red-links in the body. I fixed the MOS:DTAB issues. Tkbrett (✉) 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blue or red, I try to keep links in the lead to a minimum. "in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore" and "concerts in the United Kingdom" are soon linked again in the first paragraph of the following "Background" section, which should be sufficient. I would de-link them in the lead and keep them in the main body, but I'll leave that up to you. The rest looks good, so I'll support. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo: Thanks. I've removed the red-links from the lead and left them in the body, as I really have no idea when I'll get around to creating those articles, but if it comes down to personal preference, I can't say I agree with removing the already established blue-link. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "at the start of each of concert" - there's a stray "of" in there
  • "The Kinks wore matching red jackets, frilly shirts, black pants" - this article seems to be written in British English, so unless we are discussing their undergarments, that last word should be "trousers"
  • "while dispute arose when the Kinks..." => "while a dispute arose when the Kinks...."
  • "contributing a growing feeling among the band...." => "contributing to a growing feeling among the band...."
  • "but the session proceeded anyways" => "but the session proceeded anyway"
  • "in-front of around 15,000 concertgoers" => "in front of around 15,000 concertgoers"
  • Think that's it - great read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much ChrisTheDude. I have fixed all the points mentioned above. Tkbrett (✉) 11:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

[edit]
Since it's externally hosted, it does not affect the media review.--NØ 13:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it could, since we shouldn't link to copyright violations (WP:LINKVIO) but if it's uploaded on the official channel there shouldn't be an issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought so too. The video's description specifies that the copyright holder provided the audio for upload to YouTube. Tkbrett (✉) 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Reviewing this version, it seems like all sources show the requisite information and the formatting is largely consistent. Keeping in mind that I don't know of the reliability of music sources in detail nor have access to most sources. I don't know if the three hour thing in #47 is generalizable the way the article does. I can't find Schultz, Judith L. at Decatur Herald nor Rau, Peggy at Los Angeles Evening Citizen News. Who is Black, Johnny at MOJO? How do we know that 3500 dollars then equates 30000 in 2021? Are AllMusic, Faulk, Barry J., Christopher Hjort and Dave Davies a high-quality source? This URL is apparently broken. I assume there are no doubts about Johnny Rogan's reliability, given some comments on his article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concert length: Yes, you are right it is not generalizable. Instead, I have added two other citations – one says it went on two-and-a-half hours and another writes "long, long hours" – while also adjusting the phrasing to only say that it lasted for several hours.
  • I'm not surprised you can't find Schultz and Rau, as it seems they both worked as journalists at small-to-medium-sized daily-newspapers in the 1960s. Schultz's byline indicates she was a staff writer at the Decatur Herald. As for Rau, she was photo-editor for the Hollywood Citizen-News. (I can't seem to clip on Newspapers.com as my free subscription has apparently ended, but I found a profile of Rau in a Nashville Banner article from 14 September 1963).
  • Johnny Black has worked as a music journalist since the 1970s, writing columns in The Times, MOJO and Q, among others. Here is a bio at Rock's Backpages.
  • In this case, I believe the Inflation template draws from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis's website. I have added the template {{Inflation/fn}} as recommended at Template:Inflation § Citing inflation data sources.
  • WP:ALLMUSIC writes that "Some editors question the accuracy of [AllMusic] for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available." That entry does not expressly prohibit using AllMusic, and as I do not have major doubts regarding Stephen Thomas Erlewine's reliability – he was written for Rolling Stone, Billboard and Spin – I have left him in the article while also adding an extra reliable source where he was the only source.
  • Barry J. Faulk is a doctor and professor at the University of Florida and has written extensively on British identity. Christopher Hjort's day-by-day guide to the Byrds is meticulous in its detail, as mentioned by several reviews sourced on his Wikipedia article. Dave Davies was the Kinks' lead guitarist. His autobiography, published by Hyperion Books in 1996, is an invaluable source in Kinks related articles for detailing his later reflections. Academic Carey Fleiner, who wrote The Kinks: A Thoroughly English Phenomenon in 2017, included Dave's autobiography in her list of further reading.
  • Due to copyright restrictions, the URL may or may not work depending on the viewer's location. I do not think it is accessible in the United Kingdom, but it is accessible in the United States and Canada, and therefore is viewable by the majority of English-language wiki readers. For that reason, I think it is best to leave it.
  • Next to Kinks researcher Doug Hinman, Johnny Rogan is the most meticulous and reliable of Kinks researchers. His great research is detailed by sources on his Wiki page, as you mentioned.
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. My responses are above. Tkbrett (✉) 12:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, any come back? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SC

[edit]
Lead
  • Do the sources use the phrase "an abandonment"? If so, I presume—given the legal tussles that followed—they are referring to Abandonment (legal), which should be linked (both here and lower down).
  • All of the sources use the word "abandonment" because this was the word bandleader Ray Davies used in subsequent interviews. He was not using the term in a legal context though, so I do not think it would be appropriate to link it where he uses it, but only where it came up in the legal proceeding. There, I have piped "legal abandonment" to Abandonment (legal).
Background
  • "the Beatles experienced in the United States": this is the second mention, so you can drop to "the US"
  • Done.
  • "the Kinks visited the United States": ditto
  • Done.
Final preparations
  • "about the United States": US
  • Done.
  • "nation-wide" - > nationwide
  • Done.
  • "By early 1965, the Kinks had developed a reputation for violence and aggression": was this reputation widely known, or was it an industry-only knowledge? You go on to say that the hi-hat stand incident was downplayed, so I'm wondering if the wider public knew this – which would be worth mentioning. (The main The Kinks article says that "Tensions began to emerge", but no reference to anything like "violence and aggression", so I'm wondering whether this was public or not.)
  • The three sources I have used there do not specify, but I think anyone reading the newspapers would have been aware. There was a riot at a Kinks concert in Copenhagen on 9 April 1965; the Associated Press newswire picked up the story and it was published in newspapers across the United States. Here is the AP story printed in Nashville's daily newspaper The Tennessean (Here in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and here in the Oakland Tribune). The three sources I have used (Hasted, Savage and Fleiner) only say that the band had developed a reputation for violence and aggression, without specifying whether it was widely known or industry-only knowledge, but I added a bit from Johnny Rogan's book, as he mentions that the Cardiff incident was widely reported in the British press, leading British hoteliers to impose an unofficial ban on the Kinks. I added both of these things to the article.

Done to the end of final prep: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. My responses are above. Tkbrett (✉) 13:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more from the remainder of the article:

Repertoire
  • "all of which was custom-ordered" - > "all of which were custom-ordered"
  • Fixed.

That's it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again SchroCat. Tkbrett (✉) 16:46, 8 June 2023 (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) 8 June 2023 [32].

1995 Aigio earthquake

[edit]
Nominator(s): SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A destructive earthquake took place in Greece in 1995. It occurred in a zone where the maximum expected shaking over half a millenia was less than this event. It caused the strongest ground motion ever recorded in the country. Luckily, despite this, it only killed 26 people due to two buildings collapsing, and a further 200 were injured. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to @Ceranthor: for helping me with the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Image review pass (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • I provided a lot of comments at the peer review. A few more things that are mostly minor concerns. I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs of Tectonic setting can be combined.
  • "(Mw  5.6[note 2])" - move note 2 to outside parentheses
  • Could we add a little more to the caption than "USGS ShakeMap for the event"?
  • Really nitpicky, but this is FAC after all... I notice some inconsistency in directional notation. Such as WNW in tectonic setting but then east–west in impact. Should really be consistent style throughout.
  • "Recorded 5.4 on the mb  and Ms  scales" - add a period to be consistent with note 1
  • For sources, should ideally have either all full names or all initials for authors for consistency.

Otherwise, support. ceranthor 19:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all issues you pointed out, except I am unsure how to combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the tectonic setting. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: The third and fourth paragraphs just need to be rewritten in such a way that they flow together as one short paragraph rather than two super short paragraphs. All the information should be retained, just rewritten in a way that they flow together. ceranthor 01:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I have merged those two paragraphs. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Airship

[edit]
  • The lead could be improved significantly. At the moment, I'm not sure it meets FA criteria 1a—engaging and professional prose. The sentences are all short and staccato, it's a single paragraph which reads like a list in prose form, and there is no discernible flow or connection between sentences.
  • Agree with above—the third and fourth paragraphs of tectonic setting can be joined together.
  • "a north dipping, west-northwest trending" what does this mean? are there any helpful wikilinks?
  • I think I know what a slip rate is, but I have "strike" means. On a related note, you define "dip angle" on the second appearance.
  • "The fault reactivated during this earthquake. It showed surface rupturing and produced its largest aftershock." Which fault? Offshore? Onshore? The whole thing? What does "its" refer to—the earthquake or the fault?
  • "where the sea moved 2–3 m (6 ft 7 in – 9 ft 10 in) closer to land." can the sea move closer to the land?
  • I'm not sure about the relevance of the entirety of the Future hazard section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the lead, other than making the sentences flow together, is there any other solution you'd recommend?
    • For the future hazard section, I think it is important to highlight potential threats of a similar type in the region, as a portion of the significance of this quake is from the extreme shaking—well over the 1 in 400 year expected max in the brand new Greek seismic guidelines.
    For the rest of your concerns, I will go in and fix them. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 I have gone through and revised the issues outlined other than fixing the flow of the lead. Thank you for pointing them out. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SamBroGaming, take a look at the leads of the Category:FA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles. I would suggest two paragraphs, with one focusing on geological information, and the other focusing on human impact and response. Sorry for the delay Gog ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have taken a look at those articles, and changed the lead here to flow better and more resemble the other FAs. Hopefully the phrasing is less awkward now. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Redundancies in citations, eg "United States Geological Survey. United States Geological Survey.", should be avoided
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite web}}
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
  • What makes Bouckovalas a high-quality reliable source?
  • While the academic literature cited is extensive, I'm surprised to see almost no popular/media sources - these usually discuss impacts left out of the academic literature. Do you feel the current sourcing provides comprehensiveness? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for taking time to review this article.
  • Citations are not my strongest suit, so how would I revise the redundancy to meet the citation guidelines?
  • I will get rid of all {{citation}} tags.
  • By that do you mean have an access date for every single reference?
  • Not necessarily. You need to have a consistent "rule" for yourself - you put them in this case but not that one. You could make that every single reference has them, but you don't have to do that as long as you come up with something else that is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'm not too sure what exactly makes him super highly reliable, or if he is at all. It is unfortunately the only reference I found with the specific values it provides.
  • I'm also not very good with non academic literature type sources. What should I be looking to incorporate within the article? I feel it does provide the scientific aspect quite well, and I am not sure what could be added outside of it. I will look into that though, thanks. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest looking at similar articles which are already featured to get an idea of what the balance is. (Usually the problem is the other way around - too few scientific publications - so keep that in mind when looking). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SamBroGaming, how are you doing with getting these points addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gog the Mild:, unfortunately these past couple weeks have been far busier than I expected initially, but now I should have time to fully look into the suggestions. tldr: I'll be done with the listed suggestions by next weekend. SamBroGaming (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I have now gone through the citations and changed all citation s to cite|web s, and removed the retrieval dates as it seemed like the best way to have consistency for me. As for Bouckovalas, his work was published through one of the leading technical universities of Greece, and I think that would be reliable enough to include in the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The work in question was published on CiteSeerX, an open repository, not through a Greek university. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will remove that source and rewrite the section to have info without it. Thank you for catching that oversight. SamBroGaming (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I have now gone through the sources and removed Bouckovalas while supplanting as much information I could with better sources. Thank you for pointing out the issue with the source. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I forgot to mention, I do think the academic sources do a good job of covering the earthquake, and I don't think more mainstream references are necessary here. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting is fine; not convinced on the comprehensiveness question. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SamBroGaming ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria & Gog the Mild I have searched the internet for more mainstream references and I struggled to find any references other than a NYTimes listing which had less up to date info than other sources. Therefore, I do think the scientific articles cover everything there really is to say about this event as it is more significant from a scientific interest context rather than a more mainstream coverage context. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

This is very well written on the whole. Just a few nits to pick:

  • The Aigion fault is a north dipping, west-northwest trending (fault direction), relatively young fault, that has been rapidly growing: "north dipping" probably needs to be hyphenated as compound adjective; relative to what?; what is that last comma doing?
  • Reports of a "bright red glow" took place shortly before I'm not sure a report "takes place"
  • Thousands of aftershocks were recorded daily for how long?
  • The earthquake caused 26 deaths and 60–200 injuries can we expand on the wide discrepancy in the injury numbers?
  • It also left 4,000 people homeless,[8] with 2,100 homeless in Aigio alone using ", with" to join two clauses like that is ungrammatical, even if it's popular in journalistic copy. When the two clauses are this closely related, a comma or dash is adequate, or you could use "of which".
  • Aigio and Eratini sustained substantial damage,[2] with most occurring in northern Aigio. same problem as above; just removing the "with" here will solve the problem and improve the sentence flow.
  • between 1,071 and 1,887 houses were damaged beyond repair Again, this discrepancy is a little confusing without clarification
  • The event was felt in Athens, Ioannina, Kalamai, Kardhitsa, Kozani, and Kefallinia If it's possible, I might help to know roughly how far away some of these places are
  • ceased a week after the earthquake,[37] with 68 people having been rescued ", with" again
  • Italy also offered to deploy 20 houses for 100 people How do you deploy a house? And was the offer accepted?
  • Earthquake activity along the Aigion fault is well recorded, with events taking place in 1748 ", with"

That's it from me but I've only really looked at prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I have addressed every single one of the points made. Thank you for taking the time to look through the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Like I said, it's very well-written and all the nits I picked have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version. Right up front, there's only a few Greek sources for an earthquake in Greece. Also, the source stock is almost entirely academic sources - is there anything in newspapers, government reports etc. from the time that would be worth adding? - with no page numbers given.

Jo-Jo, English language and academic sources are preferred. There is no particular reason why either Greek or non-academic sources have to be used. Unless, obviously, they contain information meriting inclusion not available elsewhere. Equally obviously, page numbers do need to be included. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Preferred", sure, but when I see one Greek-language source for an earthquake in Greece I have to wonder about how complete the literature survey (Wikipedia:Featured article criteria §1c) was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise:

  • Where on #2 is the MMI stated?
  • Where on #24 does it say that it was the largest aftershock?
  • #29's death toll adds up to 27 tourists, not 26 as stated in the article.
  • #36 is fine, but I don't think you need three consecutive cites to the same source. One citation at the end of the text block it supports seems OK. Same for #41 and some other sources.
  • #43 does not mention Eliki anywhere; also, one of the sentences sourced to it lacks a period.
  • #40 has the issue of #36 and also that I can't find the taller buildings thing.
  • I don't see information in the article from the first two #19 citations.
  • #4 gives an acceleration of 0.5g, not 0.54g as in the infobox. Where does it say that it stabilized the Helike fault? Is the 1888 event on the Helike or the Aigion fault?
  • #13 seems to talk about the Eliki fault(s) not the Aigion one?
  • #8 where does it say 4000 homeless? Also, the 1888 earthquake was in the Aigio area, not the fault.
  • #15 I have difficulty finding the reference to the fault's growth.
  • AGFing on #30, #28, #23 and #16 as I don't have access to them.
  • #31 is a bit overly similar to the article text, and "normal faulting" in the article text sourced to it reads a bit out of place. Where does the source mention oceanographic analysis?
  • #10 where is 443?

Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SamBroGaming ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review the article. This seems to be a very thorough review, so I appreciate that. For the Greek sources, I do not speak Greek, however I did do a search for relevant Greek literature and I could not find anything useful that had new information not already included in the article.
  • It is under the "Impact" section.
  • #7 had that information, and I clarified that now.
  • While that is true, their death count is also 26 when you see how many names they have listed out in remembrance. All other sources in English also report 26 deaths. However, this does mean that their count of 11 French is suspect or a typo, so I am not sure how to proceed. English sources universally report 26 dead, so there is a discrepancy.
  • Thank you for pointing that out. Fixed.
  • That's what #11 was for. I used information from both sources in one sentence there. The missing period was fixed though.
  • It is mentioned just above the town revision section as well as in the conclusions and recommendations section.
  • For the first one you are correct, however the second use the other ref isn't being used, so I removed that one instead.
  • Also managed to slip through the cracks. #8 supports 0.54, so removing #4 should be fine. Source 4 says "Second, concerning the short term seismic hazard, the occurrence of the two recent moderate earthquakes (Aigion, 1995; Galaxidi, 1992) may have increased the probability of a large earthquake on the Aigion fault and possibly on the Psathopyrgos fault, but not on the Helike fault, most probably relaxed by the 1995 rupture."
  • #13 talks about the Aigion fault for all of them, however the number it gives for depth is in between the range in the article. I still cited it, though maybe I should remove it?
  • Not sure where I got that, but I addressed that. 1888 was on the western eliki fault according to #18, so I fixed that.
  • I forgot where I got rapidly from so I have removed that wording, however at the end of #15: "Processes involved in Egion fault growth fall into the model of 'growth by segment linkage'."
  • Appreciate it
  • I agree the normal faulting seems redundant, removed. Oceanographic analysis is mentioned a few times, for example: "However, indications of large slides along the coasts of Egio and Erateini were provided mainly by coastline retreat, turbidization of seawater and change in the sea bottom relief (the latter was maintained by local fishermen). Proof to this came later by oceanographic surveys by Papatheodorou and Ferentinos (in press) and Chronis et al. (1997). The former in particular studied extensively the submarine slides and gave detailed descriptions of the phenomenon, providing comprehensive analysis of their types and mechanisms." Where is the text too similar to the article btw?
  • Look at Figure 7 in the ref. It doesn't show up when you ctrl + f it, but the number appears from the figure itself.
Anyway, thank you for all of the suggestions, and it's very clear you took a good look at the article. Thank you so much for doing so. I appreciate it. Let me know how to fix a couple of the minor issues I had with your suggestions, and let me know if you have any more comments/concerns. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a discrepancy in casualty numbers, you might want to put a footnote where you explain the discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the note addressing casualty numbers. I need to add page numbers now, but other than that I believe I have addressed every concern you have brought up. Thank you again for taking the time to look over the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, are we GTG re. source review and spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, if I can find the statement on why there is only one Greek source again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus The reason for the seeming lack of Greek sources is that the English sources do not lack information. Using translate, the relevant literature in English covers the same content as the Greek sources do with the benefit of being already English. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you did check for Greek sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did while writing the article, however since it has undergone large revision I went back and looked again. I did not find anything of use other than sources which clarify the death count, so I replaced the other Greek language source that had contradictory information with a Greek source that was very clear on the breakdown of deaths by nationality. It also mentions the rescue of a young child who survived for a while under the rubble so I added that to the impact section. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2023 (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) 2 June 2023 [33].

Tiberius III

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Byzantine Emperor who rose to power during a time of intense strife, and reigned for a short seven years before being deposed by a previously deposed emperor. In his short reign he seems to have done much to stabilize the empire, and historian Constance Head remarks that he might have been considered one of the great Byzantine Emperors, if only he had been able to reign for longer. It has recently passed a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I believe it should pass through FAC with relative ease. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 04:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..Byzantine aid. al-Malik.." Shouldn't start a sentence with lowercase.
    Done.
  • "..the Kynegion.." As it is a redlink, could you provide some context as to what the Kynegion was?
    Done.
  • I found the Family section quite hard to follow, which I guess isn't too surprising, given the whole point is that things got a bit confused. Not sure if much can be done, but I found it particularly unclear at first if "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner has suggested that this may instead be later Emperor Theodosius III (r. 715–717)." meant that Sumner thought Theodosius III was the bishop, president and confidante (possibly instead of Tiberius's son) but might have also been Tiberius's son, or that Sumner just thought they might be the same person.
    Hopefully makes more sense now.

Overall, very little to fault, good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Done all. Thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, I'm happy to support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recuing to stake a claim. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who or what are "the Cibyrrhaeots"? (Sounds like an unfortunate infection.)
    Done.
Does "of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme" mean that he was born there or that he was posted there?
Posted there; not sure how best to specify that.
  • "beheaded between August 705 and February 706". By whom, the Bithynians?
    Done.
  • Brandes, 2003: TREADGOLD should not be in all upper case.
    Done.
  • "the Umayyad Caliphate renewed their attack". "their" → 'its'.
    Done.
  • "and declared Apsimar as emperor." Delete "as".
    Done.
  • "allied himself with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)". Sadly the parenthetical explanation is going to enlighten almost no readers.
    Done.
  • "Leontius' own dethroning of Emperor Justinian II". Is "dethroning" encyclopedic? Or even a word? Perhaps 'usurpation'?
    Both Cambridge and Oxford seem to consider it as a formal word; it is used with surprising frequency by some of the sources.
  • Enlarge the map, and put it at the start of "Rule" rather than the end of "Background".
    Done.
  • "the Anatolian themes". Which would be what?
Just for a change I'm not picking at themes. The phrase relies on a reader identifying that Anatolian is related to Anatolia, and then knowing what and where Anatolia is/was. Perhaps you could help them out?
Done.
  • Not sure exactly what the question is; has "themes" not been defined enough?
  • "Tiberius is usually referred to as Tiberius III by modern conventions" reads odd grammatically. Would "conventions" → 'historians' work?
    Done.
  • "that conquered the remainder of Byzantine Armenia". You can't say "remainder" unless you have already discussed what happened to the rest of it. Maybe 'what little remained of Byzantine's territory in Armenia' or 'the Rump of Byzantine-administered Armenia' or something similar.
    Done.
  • "captured by the Arabs and brought to Syria". "brought" → 'taken to'.
    Done.
  • "iberius attempted to contain the Arabs at sea by way of creating new military provinces". Is "way of" doing anything?
    I just think it's neat... removed.
  • "escaped from the theme of Cherson". Perhaps tell us where that is?
    Done.
  • "according to Byzantist Constance Head"; "scholars Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon"; "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner". False title alerts.
    Done.
  • "Byzantist"; "Byzantinist". Which?
    Byzantinist is more modern; standardized.
  • "the date where Tiberius was captured in Sozopolis". "where" → 'when'.
    Done.
  • Link quarter.
    Done.
  • "Constance Head comments that although little is known of Tiberius". Delete "Constance".
    Done.
  • "this son of Tiberius may be later Emperor Theodosius III". Perhaps 'this son of Tiberius may be the later Emperor Theodosius III' or 'this son of Tiberius may have later become Emperor Theodosius III' or similar.
    Done.
  • "Sumner presents the evidence that both figures". Delete "the".
    Done.

A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done or responded to all. Thank you for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have done one and responded to the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Only two comments, and very minor ones at that: I can't work out your rationale for using or not using false titles. The historian Wolfram Brandes, The Byzantinists Anthony Bryer and Judith Herrin etc, but Byzantine historian Graham Sumner, Byzantine historians Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. And the map of the empire is too small for my elderly eyes to see anything much without clicking on it and navigating away from the article, which is always a pity, I think. Otherwise nothing but praise for a succinct and readable article. To my inexpert eye it appears balanced and well sourced, and it is admirably illustrated. Happy to support. – Tim riley talk 10:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Both issues should be taken care of now; thank you for the review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Why does the lead give dates in AD?
    Done.
  • Link Constantinople in the lead?
    Done.
  • Why does the infobox say that Tiberius was born "Apsimar", but his name was "Apsimarus"?
    I think it's a full name-short name thing; like Matt and Matthew; his full name is Apsimarus but he's almost always referred to as Apsimar pre-coronation.
  • Is the Twenty Years' Anarchy really a dynasty? I would remove it.
    I've adjusted it to period.
  • Anatolia is linked twice is the body.
    Done.
  • Link Byzantinists?
    Done.
  • Link Byzantine navy to "naval"?
    Done.
  • Why does the image say "717 AD" and not just "717"? The rest of the article does not use AD.
    Done.
  • "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner" implies that Sumner was a historian from the Byzantine period.
    Done.
  • Ditto with "Byzantine historians Cyril Mango and Roger Scott..."
    Done.
  • Also, "Byzantine historians Cyril Mango and Roger Scott" may be a case of false title.
    Done.

That is all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: Done all; on an unrelated note I just took my last final and am moving out today, so I should be much freer to work on our other projects like Christopher Lekapenos. Thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what I would give to be done with my finals! Congrats, and I'll be happy to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Lots of books here and I don't know much about the literature in this field so I can't comment on omissions, so I can't do a lot of spot-checks. Citation format seems consistent to me. #2, #34 and #21 support the text cited to it. So does #33 but it's literally word-by-word. #14 does not support a lot of the details on the restoration of Justinian II. Most sources seem reliable but J. B. Bury is quite old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges and Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Have these concerns been addressed? Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I'll try to get to them tomorrow. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have rephrased #33 as much as I think is possible, but happy to take suggestions. #14 is not meant to be the sole ref for that section, a cite to Ostrogorsky got lost somewhere along the way, now restored. While Bury is old, he is foundational for modern Byzantine historical works, and mostly used for narrative details, rather than contentious material. He is widely accepted as an HQRS for the purpose of other Byzantine articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I studied under Walter Kaegi and can vouch that he is a high-quality RS. Tiberius III is quite a bit before the period with which I'm most familiar, but I can vouch for Treadgold as well. The journals cited are also highly reputable. I will say that you are inconsistent in the capitalization of your titles; most are in title case, but a few are not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Should all be fixed now. Thanks for the review, and my condolences in regards to Kaegi, a true loss. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

A cracking article: clearly already has a lot of support here, so I'll pick a few nits in the expectation of being able to add some weight to the pile soon enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "an army sent by Byzantine Emperor Leontius to retake the city of Carthage in the Exarchate of Africa": this one's more to raise a thinking point than to make a specific recommendation. To me, there's something odd about the political unit (Exarchate of Africa) here, given that the whole point of the sentence is that Carthage was now outside Byzantine control, and indeed would remain so. Does it create an unwarranted implication that the city was "properly" Byzantine? What's the calculus vs. "North African city of Carthage"?
    Done.
  • When Apsimar is used as WP:WORDSASWORDS (e.g. in "the name Apsimar"), it should be italicised. The same is true for e.g. "the regnal name Tiberius".
    Done.
  • "Additionally, it is known that he was a droungarios (a commander of about a thousand men) of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme, a military province in southern Anatolia": it took me a moment to work out how this related to the surrounding material. Do Brubaker and/or Haldon make the link that his physical presence in southern Anatolia adds weight to the Turkic hypothesis? If so, I'd link these ideas a little more explicitly.
    It doesn't seem to be framed this way for either; it's not really meant to be related, more just a collection of everything we know about him pre-revolt.
    • I do see a connection in the PbmZ source: Möglicherweise war er aus Kurikos gebürtig, sicher aber dort stationiert ("Perhaps he was a native of Kurikos: he was definitely stationed there.}}. As I read the article, it gave the implication that he might have been an officer in southern Anatolia because he was recruited as a local soldier from there: I think you've got enough in the source quoted to make that implication explicit. Perhaps a matter of taste, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "states that Tiberius had some unspecified victories": suggest cutting "unspecified", or rephrasing to something like "won victories": unspecified presumably means "the details aren't in the sources", but that's a comment on the state of our knowledge, not the victories themselves.
    Done.
  • "In 696, the Umayyad Caliphate renewed its attack": could we have a little detail (and perhaps a main article hatnote?) to give context to "renewed"?
    Done.
  • "an unnamed contemporary Syriac source": is that c. 700 or c. 1200?
    Done.
  • "Tiberius was the first naval officer to assume the throne, partly because Byzantines considered the army far more prestigious": perhaps slightly inelegant: the sentence structure would lead towards the second part explaining Tiberius's assumption of the throne, but it really does the opposite, explaining why no previous naval officer had done so. Suggest "Before Tiberius, no naval officer had ever assumed the throne, partly because...".
    Done.
  • "Patriarch Callinicus": worth expanding to "Patriarch Callinicus of Constantinople, shortly after seizing control of the city"? We haven't met this person yet.
    Done.
  • "Heraclius' military successes led to a series of punitive Arab attacks, with the Umayyad generals Muhammad ibn Marwan and Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik launching a string of campaigns that conquered what little remained of the Byzantine's territory in Armenia, which Heraclius was unable to effectively respond to". The relative clause ("which...") isn't totally grammatical here: it needs a noun or noun phrase as its subject, but it's currently got the verb conquered. One fairly straightforward fix would be "Heraclius' military successes led to a series of punitive Arab attacks: the Umayyad generals Muhammad ibn Marwan and Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik conquered what little remained of the Byzantine's territory in Armenia in a string of campaigns to which Heraclius was unable to effectively respond."
    Done.
  • Is there a reason why Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik's name is spelt out in full on second mention, but reduced to al-Malik on third?
    Fixed.
  • "Cyprus, which had been underpopulated since many of the inhabitants were moved to the region of Cyzicus under Justinian II": could we have a date for that, or perhaps a reminder that Justinian was Tiberius's predecessor?
    Done.
  • "the creation of the Theme of Sardinia and separating the Theme of Sicily from the Exarchate of Ravenna": awkward to have two balanced phrases but to start one with a noun and one with a participle: suggest either "creating ... and separating..." or "the creation of... and the separation of...".
    Done.
  • On which, could we briefly explain what a theme was on first mention?
    Done.
  • We get a lot of "Justinian II" towards the end of the "Rule" section: could he just be "Justinian" after first mention?
    This was done at the recommendation of another editor in the ACR; I think it's partly useful.
    • Fair enough, and I can see the calculus: there's another (very) famous Justinian; a reader who knows a bit about them isn't likely to be confused, but there's probably a non-trivial cohort of readers who know the name Justinian but not his rough dates. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a map of (the relevant parts of) Constantinople for Justinian's counter-coup? It would be helpful to be able to follow the quite specific geography.
    Done.
  • "Their bodies were initially thrown into the sea, but were later recovered and buried in a church on the island of Prote": "initially" could be omitted here. Do we know who threw/recovered them?
    Unknown to history, probably the nearest grunt.
  • "he remarks that": "remarks" might be a bit too factual a word for what is inherently a counterfactual speculation.
    Changed to "posits"
  • "The period that Tiberius ruled in, the Twenty Years' Anarchy, was so fraught with strife that it is common that not even the names of the emperors' spouses have been retained.": the tenses flow a little awkwardly here. Perhaps something like "Other details of Tiberius's family, including the name of his spouse, are lost: a common consequence of the upheaval of the period in which Tiberius ruled, known as the Twenty Years' Anarchy"?
    Done.
    Nudge... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, is that nudge to me? If so, what am I being nudged to do? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, the ping would've been to you if I meant you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry: I didn't realise it was a ping. All good! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, will get to this soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Done or responded to all; apologies for the wait, and thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - happy to support. I've left a comment on the Anatolian question: I think the sources will allow you to be a little more bullish, but that's a minor consideration in an excellent article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.