Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2023 [1].

Freedom (concert)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously worked on a Filipino concert article, I've decided to try my hand with another one. This time it is about a 2021 livestreaming concert curated by singer Regine Velasquez at the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns and absence of in-person live events. It finds Velasquez crafting a show with the intention of being given the freedom to sing whatever she wants and to have freedom from her audience's high expectations. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "through four live streaming platforms at 8:00 p.m." Should "at" be 'from'?
I think "at" is used to describe specific times or a particular numerical time on the clock i.e. it aired on Wednesdays at 9:00 p.m., "from" would probably be used for time ranges/duration i.e. from 8:00 p.m to midnight. Thoughts?
In which case perhaps 'through four live streaming platforms at 8:00 p.m.'?
Done as suggested (I think). Let me know if I understood it correctly.
  • "she's". The MoS depreciates such contractions. (If it didn't, it would be 'she'd'.)
  • "spanning different music eras, such as Elton John, Chris Isaak, George Michael, Sara Bareilles, Dua Lipa, and Billie Eilish". That doesn't really work. Perhaps rephrase?
  • "many of whom praised". "whom" → 'which'.
  • "₱1 million". Is it known what the equivalent in US dollars was?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the review Gog. I have addressed all points, except where I had a comment to clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Development of Freedom began ..." → 'The development of Freedom began ...'.
Done
  • "the show would be livestreamed on February 14, 2021". But it wouldn't. Maybe 'the show was scheduled to be livestreamed on February 14, 2021' or similar?
Done
  • "The concert's name and concept was crafted from Velasquez's desire to perform new material from a variety of music genres and step out of her comfort zone." This seems a little promotional. Could we step back from Wikipedia's voice? 'Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept was crafted from her desire to perform new material from a variety of music genres and step out of her comfort zone.' or similar?
Revised as suggested
  • "In an online press conference with Star Music, Velasquez revealed, "Because of the pandemic that happened, it’s like we all want to be free. Personally, I wanted to do something else and be given that freedom of singing whatever I want ... free of expectations from people". This seems both primary sourcing and marketing tosh. What information is it conveying? Whatever it is, could it not be paraphrased in straight prose? (Per MOS:QUOTE.)
Paraphrased in prose.
  • Does the last sentence of this paragraph not effectively duplicate the first?
Removed
  • "The show was stated to have a total of 20 production numbers and will have a running time of two hours". This mixes tense. One way of resolving t would be 'The show was stated to have a total of 20 production numbers and a running time of two hours'. There are others.
Revised per suggestion
  • "and revealed that". Maybe something a little more NPOV? 'claimed', 'stated', 'asserted', 'said' or even more circumlocutory?
Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Comments/suggestions have been actioned. Let me know if I missed anything.Pseud 14 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "female dancers doing a lyrical dance routine." Consider "doing" → 'performing'.
Done
  • Optional: Something at the end of this paragraph to indicate that the first act has ended? Similarly at the end of the following paragraph.
I was able to use "ended the segment" on the second para. Can't think of any alternative to close the act or end the segment for the first para though. Hopefully that's fine.
  • "Freedom closed with a performance of Tears for Fears's "Mad World"." Should it be mentioned that this was an encore?
Added
  • "A music critic from the Manila Standard. Is the name of this critic known?
Unfortunately, it's not mentioned on the article. In the absence of name(s) in reviews for film/tv/concerts, we usually substitute it with media critic, music critic, a writer for [publication].

Not in my usual area, so feel free to argue with anything. Still, nice to see such a solid article outside of where I usually review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, I have addressed the above. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. I appreciate you taking on this review, a fresh set of eyes is always welcome. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review and your support Gog. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • "Freedom: The Regine Velasquez Digital Concert" - infobox image seems to suggest the full-length title was actually Freedom: The Regine Velasquez-Alcasid Digital Concert
Updated the title
  • "that she'd never done before" => "that she had never done before" (no contractions!)
You're right! I should've remembered, I learned this from your reviews :)
  • "Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept was crafted" => "Velasquez stated that the concert's name and concept were crafted" (there are two subjects so the verb should be plural)
Done
  • "by The Philippine Star, who noted it is" => "by The Philippine Star, which noted that it was"
Done
  • "The performance began [...] She then descends [...] The singer continued" - begins in the past tense then switches to present tense then back to past. Use past throughout the synopsis
Should be consistent in the past tense now
  • "including those who have passed away" => "including those who had died"
Done
  • "In a review by the Philippine Entertainment Portal, it considered the show's production" => "A review by the Philippine Entertainment Portal considered the show's production"
Done
Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude. I have actioned your comments, let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing and for your support ChrisTheDude. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria. Removed px size. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
"₱1 million (US$0.02 million)" looks very strange; something like "₱1 million (US$20,000)" would be better. —Kusma (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kusma. Revised as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • No verification problems found in my brief spotcheck.
  • All refs have links to accesible archives.
  • I feel obligated to ask, are there any secondary sources that could be used as alternatives to Instagram (ref 5) and Twitter (ref 6, 19)? Since these are posts from Velasquez herself they are acceptable in the absence of other options.--NØ 13:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review MaranoFan. I have removed ref 5 & 6, replaced with a secondary source (now ref 4). Ref 19 has been replaced with a secondary source, now Ref 17. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing this so quickly. Apologies for another minor nitpick, but I noticed that most of the refs that go to news.abs-cbn.com have ABS-CBNnews.com as the publisher but ref 3 and ref 11 have ABS-CBN News. It should probably be consistent. This is the last thing I caught.--NØ 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan No worries at all and thanks for catching that. I believe it should all be fixed and consistent now. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With that out of the way, the source review passes!--NØ 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this FAC on prose. Got a good look at it during the source review and it is engaging and of a professional standard. It is well-researched, and props to the nominator for watching the whole concert and writing an elaborate synopsis of it for the readers.--NØ 09:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kinds words. Appreciate the dual reviews and your support MaranoFan. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eli

[edit]

Saving a spot, will come to this after Telephone :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back! Delighted to review more of your stuff

  • Convert all double quotation marks used in reference titles to single quotation marks (MOS:QWQ)
Lead
[edit]
  • "Velasquez arranged for the livestream in order to perform material from a variety of music genres"
    • I feel like this would be a great opportunity to include the "freedom of singing" quotation to wrap it back to the opening line
    • The sentence's structure as it stands is somewhat convoluted and hard to parse. "Freedom's premise is 'freedom of singing', stemming from Velasquez's desire to cover songs from several genres" --- how's that?
  • "create a live experience on a stream that she had never done before" very vague. I looked at the prose to see if there was anything there that clarified the meaning for me, but I found nothing. Perhaps it is an allusion to the "Velasquez additionally thought her fans were longing for some sort of human connection" bit, but in that case, I think it's better to just say that outright?
  • "Freedom was filmed live" the live is redundant
  • "Commercially, the show was also successful" the ticket sales speak for itself; remove it
Development and background
[edit]
  • You specify Valentine's Day in the lead but not the prose.
I've piped to February 14 as mentioning both the date and "Valentine's day" would appear redundant. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split everything in the first paragraph starting from "Freedom was officially announced in December..." The sentences before that cover the online benefit concerts she did, and Freedom isn't really one.
  • "A promotional poster was released along with the announcement of the venture showing a portrait of Velasquez's head shot in grayscale." I am pretty sure most concerts come with promotional posters. Simplify this to "The promotional poster depicted a portrait of Velasquez's head shot in greyscale." In case there was more than one promotional poster, change the "the" article to "a".
  • I hate to nitpick this, but "step out of comfort zone" is a MOS:IDIOM and must be replaced.
  • Is there any particular reason behind saying "claimed" "said" "asserted" and other such similar words when discussing Velasquez's vision for Freedom? It makes it seem like we shouldn't take what she says at face value.
Per Gog's review above, usage is more NPOV. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Velasquez was heavily involved in planning and production" you already said this
  • "Velasquez was heavily involved in planning and production, and said that her main objective was to deliver performances of songs from various music eras 'with an exciting twist'. She claimed that working on the project fueled her artistic growth and maturity.
    • This fits more snugly with the previous section. you can merge the "main objective... music eras ... 'exciting twist' " bit with the part on the previous paragraph that mentions how she wanted to "perform new material from a variety of music genres", and you can move the "artistic growth" part after "different elements of the production"
  • Move the sentence about the production numbers after the sentence about the filming location
  • Split everything in the last paragraph starting from "On February 9..." into its own paragraph.
  • The lead says "potential exposure" while the body says "due to a COVID-19 exposure". One implies a possibility and another implies that possibility happened. Clarify which one it is.
Consistent now. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
[edit]
  • "VIP-ticket holders got to experience exclusive behind the scenes footage from Freedom's rehearsals" I think this should be at the end, beside "VIP-ticket guests also got to attend a virtual meet-and-greet and after party"
  • Later in the prose you say the concert is divided into acts. State this fact: "The concert is divided into four acts and opens..."
  • Be consistent with the tense. "descended the podium...goes straight..." is one example.
  • "she made her way to a piano" if she played this song on a piano, say that instead
  • Since the premise is that Velasquez covered many songs from several different eras, include the release years for each song after namedropping them
  • "performed 'Levitating'...with her dancers while doing a choreography" ambiguous sentence structure. Did Velasquez dance with the dancers? Did the dancers also sing "Levitating"? A mix of Both?
Revised and clarified. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cover of Adele's 'Rolling in the Deep' and interpolation of Linkin Park's 'In the End' " to clarify, she interpolated Linkin Park for this Adele cover, yes?
Correct. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lyrical dance routine" -> "dance routine based on the lyrics"?
I think lyrical dance itself is a much more appropriate terminology. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paying tribute to individuals in the industry" you mean the music industry?
Entertainment industry. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
[edit]
  • We mentioned earlier that Velasquez felt pressure to continue surprising her audience. In the critical reception section, try to link that to her prior comment by saying the reviews seemed to indicate that her worries were assuaged.
I think the Rappler review which described her demeanor as relaxed, etc. seemed to allude to that, including the quote. I'm not sure if her personal worries needs to be justified with the positive review. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we only have three reviewers, write "Freedom was met with positive reviews from three critics." Using "generally" implies a wide pool of commentary from which to derive consensus, which is not the case here.
  • ""bared Regine's beautiful range and exceptional artistry" give examples of songs that exemplified this.

That's all I have to say. We are close to the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of prose; all we need is a bit of tweaking here and there and we're good to go! I performed thorough copyediting to address issues with clarity, flow, cohesion, concision, and repetition; and make sure the intended meaning in some parts was properly reflected. Nothing about the content itself has changed drastically, so it should be okay; regardless, please feel free to revert changes with which you disagree.

Thank you for this article! I had a great time reading this. If you have time and energy, your input on a FAC of mine would greatly be appreciated. Still, you are not obligated to respond. Hope wiki-life and off-wiki life are treating you well, and have a nice week! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review and copyedits Your Power. I have addressed all points, unless otherwise stated. Let me know if you have additional comments or if I missed anything. I'd be happy to have a look at your FAC this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Pseud 14. I rewatched some ABS-CBN coverage of the concert, and with that in mind you should probably clarify that Velasquez paid tribute to figures from the Philippine entertainment industry, no? Apart from that, that's all. There is nothing at this point holding back a support from me :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support Your Power. I’ve clarified in the article as you pointed out. Much appreciate your edits too. They have been very helpful. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 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) 31 March 2023 [2].

Battle of the Great Plains

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another from the Second Punic War, as the Carthaginian war effort falls apart. A certain lack of esprit de corps may be detected in this battle. The article shares many features with the immediately preceding battle of Utica. The article was overhauled and went through GAN in January. I hope that it will be favourably received here, if so I hope to shortly be bringing you the battle of Zama. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

You know the drill, Gog. Comments to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ALT for the lead image doesn't seem to match the actual photograph?
I have removed "black and white".
  • Instead of template formatting like {{c.}} 30,000, can we have {{circa|30,000}}?
Sure.
  • Was Polybius more favourable to the Roman or Carthaginian side? This would change the meaning of the sentence "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith by the Romans to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage..."
Nope. As Primary sources says "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view."
  • "In 210 BC Roman reinforcements stabilised the situation;[23] later that year Publius Cornelius Scipio,[note 3] arrived with further Roman reinforcements to take command in Iberia" Superfluous comma before note 3?
I am going for a little lie down.
I try not to make the same mistakes too many times. Instead I find new ones to make.
Done
  • "He was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC, despite not meeting the age requirement" Do we know how old he was? That might be useful to briefly mention here.
Good point. Done.
  • Is there anything about Hanno on Wikipedia? Or shall it remain linkless?
There is nothing more about him anywhere. Linkless he shall remain.
  • You should be consistent with your usage of the Oxford comma: for instance, I see "here was also extensive fighting in Iberia, Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa", but then I see "Scipio assembled a vast quantity of food and materiel, merchant ships to transport it and his troops, and warships to escort the transports"
In the case you cite the commas are all needed for clarity. Eg, removing the last one has the merchant ships transporting their escorts.
  • "When word of the defeat reached Carthage there was panic, with some wanting to renew the peace negotiations" Do we know if "some" refers to general citizens, or was it lawmakers/government officials?
Senators. Added and sourced.
  • Do any sources state what "Africanus" means? As in, what does it translate to?
Of the first six I checked which mention it, no. The only one which says anything about it is Lazenby "... the first Roman general to be known by a name derived from the scene of his victories". The fact that no later sources seem to repeat this explicit claim makes me a little twitchy.
  • The title of Rawlings (1996) is not capitalised.
Oops. Fixed.

I think I've spotted more frequent comma usage in this article!

There is no need to be insulting.

By the way, I've recently spoken with my dear English professor, who informed me that my methods of commaisation, while not incorrect, are quite antiquated. I don't dare to ask how old you are, Gog, but certainly you write like a young person!

Lol. I imagine that I am older than you are.

Wonderful work on yet another Punic War article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ULL, all good points and all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall be glad to extend a support. Keep up the good work, lad. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are starting t sound very British. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, now? I must being hanging around too many Brits... (looks at you and Dudley)
Wait. How did you know I was American? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*smug smiley*

Funk

[edit]
Bleh, fixed.
  • Link names in captions?
I don't usually as I consider it dup linking. But if you prefer it, I will. Could you clarify what you mean by "names"?
I'd link Scipio, Second Punic War, and battle of Zama, to make it easy for the readers skimming the article to get an overview. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Thanks for dropping by Funk, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The near-contemporary historian Polybius considered" As I've repeated a couple of times, could be nice to note that he was Greek, to show impartiality.
I don't see how that would establish impartiality. Plenty of Greeks of the time disliked the Romans. Often for good reason. And I don't see how this would communicate what you think it would to the average reader. But added.
You agreed with the rationale when I brought it up long ago, the assumption being that being neither Roman nor Carthaginian, he would he would have less of an interest in . FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies; allied legions" This confused me a bit. By Latin allies, do we mean Latin-speaking people outside Rome proper, wouldn't they already be considered Romans due to being part of the empire?
There was no Empire. This was the Republic. There was a very sharp distinction between Romans and non-Roman ethnic Latins. Most of whom probably but not certainly spoke some dialect of Latin.
Makes sense, I'm not too strong on Roman chronology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who were not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.)" Shouldn't the period of the main sentence come after the parenthesis, and the first word in the parenthesis be de-capitalised? Probably a style variation I just don't know of.
To me that would look really odd. And it looks standard as it is. Given that the same phrase has gone through 11 FACs unchallenged, I think it's a style variation.
  • "close combat. (The latter were usually Numidians.)" Same, but pardon me if it's only sheer ignorance that I haven't seen this style before.
I had a similar issue with Unlimitedlead and we both ended up confused with the other's approach. Perhaps we could ask the scholar and guru of all things stylish Mr Riley to arbitrate? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could still be interesting to hear Tim out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Libyans" to something?
Linked to something.
  • "Aged 31 was elected to the senior position of consul in early 205 BC" Missing "he" before "elected?
Bleh again. Sorry.
  • "But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted, Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army" Missing "and" after the common, to show it is the result of the first part of the sentence?
In my use of English "and" would mean that the second part of the sentence was something additional to (and) and implicitly separate to the first. (Eg, ham and egg.) But it is easy enough to tweak. Does 'But Roman commitment was less than wholehearted: Scipio was not allowed to conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, but could only call for volunteers.' work for you?
Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livy gives totals" Introduce him as Roman historian?
Apologies. I forgot I wasn't using an introductory sources section. Done.
Good stuff. Thanks FunkMonk, looking forward to the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Funk, appreciated as ever. I think I have covered everything outstanding from above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Splendidly clear and readable article. It is my usual practice to put any article I review through a spell-checker, and I am enchanted to find that your "Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax" should be "Hasdrubal Gismo and Syphon". Or not. Be that as it may, here are a few quibbles, none consequential enough to prevent me from adding my support:

  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – "eligible" sounds like a privilege. Perhaps they saw it that way − Dulce et decorum est and all that − but speaking as a proud holder of The Queen's Award for Cowardice I see them as "liable" rather than eligible. I do not press the point.
I have used the word in 17 prior FACs and it has not been picked up. But you are quite right. Changed.
  • "less than whole hearted" – the OED makes "wholehearted" a single word.
Hmm. Wholed.
Your "Hmm" sent me to the other dictionaries on my shelf. The Bloomsbury is with the OED, Collins ditto but admits a hyphenated alternative and Chambers hyphenates the word, but whatever way it ain't two separate words. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scipio could not conscript troops for his consular army, as was usual, only call for volunteers" – "only" is not a conjunction: you could do with a "but" in front of it.
Added.
  • "more than 90% were infantry" – I may be out of date – it is in fact my default position – but when last I looked, the MoS recommended "per cent" rather than "%" in the prose.
Which bit are you looking at? I was relying on "Write 3%, three percent, or three per cent".
Blimey! You're on your own there, laddie! I leave it to you. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was from the MoS. Delving a little deeper [!] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers says "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used". "commonly used" huh? Ah well, changed. Serves me right for delving.
  • "individual centuries - the basic Roman army manoeuvre unit of 80 men - to exercises …" – you want spaced en-dashes rather than hyphens here.
Good grief! I don't know what came over me.
  • "Hanno and 1,000 of his men were killed or taken prisoner" – Hanno was killed or taken prisoner? Surely you know which?
I believe that he was in a SchroCatian state of indeterminacy. This has now collapsed.
  • "The size of both of these armies … have been questioned" – singular noun "size" wants a singular verb, "has"
Oops.
  • "stripped them of all of their overseas territories" – is the second "of" necessary?
Nope.

Pray consider these minor carpings, but I am happy to support the article for FA. It is clear, highly readable, balanced, evidently comprehensive without going on at length, well and widely referenced and well illustrated, even though Scipio has got no nose. Quomodo olet? Malodorus est. – Tim riley talk 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as ever Tim for keeping me on the straight and narrow. All of your comments addressed. The % one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff! Sorry to have raised and then dropped the % point. Would it be intolerably feline to ask if you are thinking about changing the "eligible" in the 17 articles you mention? Be assured I shall not pursue the point. Onwards and upwards to further top-notch Punic War articles. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to. Or else you will bring it up at every future Punic War review. % also changed, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Happy to leave my support clearly displayed so that the co-ordinators (you know what they're like) don't miss it. Tim riley talk 21:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Not too many images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder for now JennyOz (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, only some minor questions from me...

info box

  • Medjerda River - this name not mentioned in prose, change to Bagradas River per elsewhere?
Done.
  • image - I'm confused. Why is it named bust of Sulla? Is it another photo of same bust as that on Sulla which is captioned "Bust formerly thought to be of Sulla"? If it's Scipio, should it be renamed on commons? Do the refs in the infobox explain it?

lede

Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. Personally I never believe anything I read on it. And don't get me started about Commons. Yes, the cites nail down as firmly as anything from 2,000 years ago is ever likely to be that it is Scipio. I hate putting cites in captions, but have had so many - entirely reasonable - queries on this that I have gone with them. Why an image "formerly thought to be of Sulla" is considered to be appropriate for the Sulla article I really would not like to say.
Agree, a weird one JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gisgo spelling but Gisco elsewhere
Meh!
  • After a disastrous Roman setback in 210 BC (ie Baetis) but later "In 211 BC the Romans suffered a severe reverse at the battle of the Upper Baetis"
Hmm. I hadn't realised it could be read that way. Slightly rephrased to be less ambiguous.

Opposing forces

  • tightly-packed formation - no hyphen
Ah, "-ly". Removed.
  • if the other commander was - if one commander was?
Gone with "if either of the commanders".

Battle

  • while the Numidian cavalry under Masanissa were - Masinissa
*eye roll* I thought I had got all of those.
  • the battle opened with the cavalry on each flank charged - what does "charged" mean, ready to fight?
Sorry. Tjhat got mangled somewhere in the copy editing. Should read "the battle opened when the cavalry on each flank charged"

Notes

  • ...not Carthaginian citizens. (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.) - Punc, ie not a sentence?
Ah. Nice spot.
  • Masinissa also married Syphax's wife, Sophonisba, Hasdrubal's daughter. - Bigamy normal? Had Syphax been killed after capture?
No, he died in captivity a year later. The sources don't directly comment on that aspect, but the founder of Rome (Romulus) married the already married woman Hersilia in the wake of the "rape of the Sabine women", so there seem to be traditional precedents which raised few eyebrows.

That's all from me, JennyOz (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful stuff. Just when you think you have nailed down all the corners, Jenny comes along and spots all of your silly errors. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good thanks Gog, very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are of high quality. All are from the last thirty years, which is unusual for an article of this type.
  • Sources are well-formatted.
  • Spot checks: 55, 58, 61, 88 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hawkeye7, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the co-ordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Please sirs, can I have another one? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More...?! Oh all right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 24 March 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) 28 March 2023 [3].

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC), User:PericlesofAthens[reply]

Have you ever heard of March Madness? Well, it's 1 March (where I live; it's actually 2 March UTC ) and prepare for a whole lot of madness! PericlesofAthens have been working on this article for a bit (kudos on him for building this article from the ground up and taking it through GA), and after a depressing FA nomination in 2018, we believe things will go smoother this time around. Read this article, and you'll discover that Alexander isn't the only great thing about Macedon... Unlimitedlead (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead Thanks for the shoutout and kudos for nominating this article for FA status! Hopefully it will prove successful this time around. I'm not very active here anymore, but I'll be watching it closely whenever I'm around. With a quick inspection things look good, especially in regards to variety of sources used, thorough use of inline citations, and reliable sourcing for images. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: you previously expressed support for this nomination (back in 2018). Would you be interested in giving this article another review and offering your suggestions? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, you previously declared all images to be appropriately licensed in the 2018 nomination. I have since added three new images (one at the top, two at the bottom), so would you mind checking on this? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

insert WikiCup points declaration I'll get to this soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification.
  • I'm not sure what your position on duplicate links is, but there are a lot.
Removed them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Could do with a bit of tightening, esp. first couple of sentences. At the moment reads "The earliest government of ancient Macedonia was established some time during the period of Archaic Greece (8th–5th centuries BC) by the Argead dynasty of kings who ruled over the kingdom. Due to shortcomings in the historical record, very little is known about the origins of Macedonian governmental institutions before the reign of Philip II of Macedon (r. 359 – 336 BC), during the final phase of Classical Greece (480–336 BC)."
Things I noticed: "some time during the period of" is a bit waffly; "kings who ruled over the kingdom" seems like it's willing to be repetitive to get links in; Ancient Macedonia is linked to from "the origins", which isn't where I would expect that to go; "the origins...before the reign of Philip" surely if little is known about government before Philip, then we not only don't know much about the origins, but a large part of the history?
What I might do: "The first government of ancient Macedonia was established by the Argead dynasty of Macedonian kings during the Archaic period (8th–5th centuries BC). The early history of Ancient Macedonia is obscure because of shortcomings in the historical record; little is known of governmental institutions before the reign of Philip II during the late Classical period."
Does that work in your opinion?
Yes; done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These institutions continued to evolve" is similarly a bit weak: 1) repetition of "institutions", 2) the linking of "continued to evolve" to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), a page which discusses almost nothing of the continued evolution of Macedonian government, is a bit odd.
Changed to "These bureaucratic organizations evolved in complexity under his successor Alexander the Great and the subsequent Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties of Hellenistic Greece (336–146 BC)." @PericlesofAthens: what do you think of this replacement? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead that looks fine to me! No complaints. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Fourth Macedonian War broke out, which resulted" you could remove the "broke out, which"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the lead is good, imo.
Sources (ooh I love a sources section) and Division of power
Note 1 ("write with apparent certainty and conviction") is WP:OR, no?
@PericlesofAthens: I do not have access to this particular source; any thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"was the first to" in two consecutive sentences. also "was the first to refute these ideas" which ideas? Granier's? Then didn't he just write what people had been saying before Granier? Not really a refutation.
I have since removed the "first to refute" part, but allow me to interpret: " Pietro De Francisci refuted these ideas" means that Francisci disagreed with Granier's theory (of a Macedonian constitutional government), and "advanced the theory that the Macedonian government was an autocracy ruled by the whim of the monarch..." does indeed mean that he continued expanding on what people were saying before. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead Sorry to chime in late here, but that is absolutely correct. Thanks for asking! Pericles of AthensTalk 12:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Institutions
"was divided into small tribal regions each having their own petty king" fairly certain a slight change in grammar/punctuation is needed here
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"an Eastern, Persian monarch" don't think both qualifiers are needed
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet it was his father" we sure this isn't MOS:EDITORIAL?
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "somatophylakes" is used before the bodyguard section to define bodyguard, after the bodyguard section to define bodyguard, but not in the bodyguard section to define bodyguard (or anything else, for that matter). Confusing.
Really? I thought after two previous mentions that the meaning of somatophylakes would be clear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still quite confused. Is a somatophylax what you would call a proper bodyguard at all, or is it just a modern designation? Was "the agema of the hypaspistai" a proper bodyguard then (and incidentally is the agema or the hypaspistai the "type of ancient special forces usually numbering in the hundreds")? Is the "smaller group of men handpicked by the king either for their individual merits or to honor the noble families to which they belonged" the somatophylakes, or are they some other people? The article says that all of them "were not always responsible for protecting the king's life on and off the battlefield"—were they ever responsible for protection? I just think it's a little confusing. Rest looks good though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: "[royal] bodyguards" could be considered a modern translation of somatophylakes. Sorry, "of" was a typo for "or", methinks. I have changed the surrounding language a little as well. And no, they were not responsible for protection; the article states that the distinction was a formal, titular one of status. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the bodyguard section is a single paragraph, as is the royal page section. Perhaps combine them?
I take your point, but I think having one section discussing two very different roles would be confusing for readers. If you insist though, I will do so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The companions ... represented a substantially larger group than the king's bodyguards." but did they include the bodyguards?
If I'm interpreting the source material correctly, the companions and the bodyguards both comprised the King's court, but the companions did not include the actualy bodyguards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The most trusted or highest ranking companions formed a council that served as an advisory body to the king." I assume this is the synedrion of the {{further}} hatnote? Perhaps name and link in article text.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is note 5 necessary in its entirety?
I am inclined to think so, as it provides more information about the whole Athenian democracy debacle, which is important to know but not important enough to be in the actual article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currency section is nice
Military
I'm not sure about this, but the section does seem to slightly lose focus. The emphasis seems to be much more on the army as a military force than as a government institution. That might just be me, though. I'll leave it at that, in case anyone else has any thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that the military, which was established, maintained, and tied to the Macedonian monarchy, is important enough to have substantial material written on it in this article. I agree, though: I will wait to see what other reviewers have to say. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 thanks for the support! Sorry that I'm late to the party, as I do not frequent Wikipedia very often these days. Your input, contributions to improving the article, and support are much appreciated, though. Also great job on @Unlimitedlead, who deserves a great deal of credit even if he somehow doesn't get this article over the finish line of the FA nomination. Looks like it's well on its way, though! Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Srnec

[edit]

Why isn't the title just "Government of ancient Macedonia"? Srnec (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec Actually, I'm not sure. Would you like to me move it, request a discussion to move, or leave it be? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, by all means discuss a page move here but, if one is agreed, pls action it after the FAC nom is closed so we don't disrupt the closing process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be moved. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec it is named as such because it follows the same convention as the other sub-articles for Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Are you suggesting all of the articles should be moved or retitled? I wouldn't be opposed to that, but just moving this one on its own seems illogical unless you are prepared to move several articles all at once. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so might also stir up unnecessary trouble between Greek and North Macedonia nationalists lurking here on Wikipedia, since they contest the region and name "Macedonia", so removing the distinction that we're talking specifically about the kingdom itself would probably disturb the hornet's nest again. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, I see only one other article with a title like this one—History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). There more that use "ancient Macedonian": Ancient Macedonians (and the related List of ancient Macedonians and List of ancient Macedonians in epigraphy), Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian calendar and Ancient Macedonian army. Now, I see how the latter could be ambiguous, insofar as Roman Macedonia was also ancient; and I could see how the people, the calendar and the language are not inextricably linked to the kingdom; but the army is certainly a parallel to this article and the history one. WP:SHORTFORM gives examples where it could go either way. I think the word "ancient" is enough to clarify and we can avoid parentheses. Srnec (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a move, but just giving fair warning that it might potentially stir the pot of the ultranationalists here. Then again it's been quiet for a while now, maybe they have migrated somewhere else to fight each other (hopefully, LOL). I guess the articles could always be temporarily locked again if that happens. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will review this when I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the historiography section, it would be nice to see a short gloss on the time period for the historians mentioned, such as works of Herodotus (5th century), Thucydides (5th century)..." and so on, or perhaps organize it by century such as The main sources of early Macedonian historiography are the works of 5th-century BC historians Herodotus and Thucydides, 1st-century AD Diodorus Siculus, and 2nd-century AD Justin. when a sentence contains many sources.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • made before Philip II of Macedon's reign is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin. suggest made before Philip II of Macedon's reign (r. 359 – 336 BC) is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I think reign length templates for mentioned kings would be very prudent and useful for readers.
Understood. Will get to later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main textual primary sources for the organization of Macedonia's military as it existed under Alexander the Great include Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus, and Plutarch, while modern historians rely mostly on Polybius and Livy for understanding detailed aspects of the Antigonid-period military.[ is this referenced by Sekunda 2010, pp. 446–447, the reference the note contains? If so, suggest citing it directly before the note.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Greek victory at Salamis in 480 BC suggest either changing the link to Battle of Salamis to encompass all of Greek victory at Salamis, or changing the text of such as After the Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was his father Philip II who had already shown signs... phrasing seems somewhat strange, perhaps His father Philip II had already shown signs...
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • since there are very few means by which modern historians are capable of confirming their veracity (and could have been possibly lower or even higher than the amount stated) not sure parenthesis are the best option here, perhaps since there are very few means by which modern historians are capable of confirming their veracity, and the true number could have been possibly lower or even higher than the amount stated.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were organized into chiliarchs suggest short gloss for chiliarch.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In around the Antigonid period military section, the article diverges from defining a term in English, giving a Greek name in parenthesis, and then using Greek therafter, to terms being labeled in Greek, defined in English, then used in English going forward. Not certain why this is so, but suggest standardizing to the first.
Understood. Will get to later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure I see anything amiss here. Would you mind clarifying where exactly you see the issue? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: Compare section from Division of power: the king (basileus).[6] From at least the reign of Philip II the king was assisted by the royal pages (basilikoi paides), bodyguards (somatophylakes), companions (hetairoi), friends (philoi) to this section: divided now into chalkaspides 'bronze shield' and leukaspides 'white shield' regiments; the ordering and format are swapped for unknown reasons from [English term (Greek)] to [greek term 'english term'. Maybe it's done because the terms are literal translations instead of general language, but it seems weird to me.
@Iazyges: Gotcha. This has been adjusted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • followed by the Roman victory in the Fourth Macedonian War and establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia. suggest changing followed by to which led to to imply greater causation.
The proposed phrasing sounds awkward in my opinion. Do you have any other words/phrases instead? Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can think of; it's fine as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are either of the external links necessary or useful for the article?
Removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Image_larnax_of_philip.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Alexander_III_Babil_Stater.jpg, File:Akedonya_Krallığı_Alexander_III_Kaunos_Tetradrahmi.jpg
For the first concern, which tag would be most appropriate for a photograph of an ancient object? {{PD-old-100-expired}}? Also, I have replaced the last two with File:INC-2032-a Статер Македонское царство Милет чеканка при Филоксене (аверс).png; is this acceptable?
That too will need a tag for the original work - old-100-expired will work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-en.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
That image is not in this article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in a navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and removed several navboxes, including the one in question. They seem somewhat irrelevant considering this subject matter. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not understand. The Commons page already has {{PD-US}} and {{PD-100}}. Is there something else that needs to be done? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those meant to apply to the photo itself, or the artifact pictured? If the photo, when and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it's the artifact pictured, but I'm not sure. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then because this is a 3D work we do also need tagging for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: is PD-old-100-expired okay? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The image description suggests a publication in 2007, but being such an ancient artwork, who knows who else could have published it before this. Should I just remove the image :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest doing a bit of digging first, see what you can find. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The publication captions the image: "© 2003. Photo Scala, Florence/Fotografica Foglia". Any ideas on how this could help us? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was copyrighted in 2003, unless it was released under a free license it's almost certainly copyrighted. So you could reach out to that contact to see if they'd be willing to release it, or you could remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have removed that image, and I think that should be it for the image review! Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria @Unlimitedlead What? That has to be entirely incorrect. It is very clearly a very old-timey black-and-white photograph of the Roman relief, and the page for "File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.png" even clearly states that the original photographer was the French geographer Élisée Reclus (1830–1905). Reclus had been dead for 98 years before the year 2003. I think the picture can be restored swiftly and without issue. Any copyright claims on it are dubious if not absurd in my view. Pericles of AthensTalk 10:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of an earlier publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the image page says (as explained by the original uploader), it comes from the L'Homme et la terre ("The Earth and Its Inhabitants") by Elisee Reclus, published as early as 1876, translated into English and published various times in the 1890s, with the latest publication I've seen being 1905, the year of his death. This website also claims public domain status and Reclus as the original photographer: https://www.timetravelrome.com/2019/10/02/agrippa-victory-at-mylae/ Pericles of AthensTalk 19:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into that, Pericles. I have added the picture to the article again. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have done some and raised responses to others. Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Apologies, but more responses. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass

[edit]

Well researched article. Awesome work.

  • Sources are high quality.
  • Coarelli (1987) Add Italian language and reformat the ISBN to match all the others
    Done.
  • Roisman (2010), Sawada (2010), Sekunda (2010) Link pointing to the (same) wrong book
    They are chapters from the same book: A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. The link always takes you to page 401. Very well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: fn 10, 15, 19, 66, 102, 103. - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the source review. I have an inquiry. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 Thanks for the review and your support! Pericles of AthensTalk 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7, just checking if your "support" is referring to the source review or is a more general support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I looked at enough of the article to issue a more general support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 21 March 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2023 [4].

Wilfred Arthur

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around a long time: I took it to MilHist A-Class 10 years ago but was never really happy with it. I've now given it a complete overhaul, expanding by more than a third and correcting several errors, and feel it's ready for the bronze star.

Fellow ace of the recently nominated Alan Rawlinson, Wilf Arthur had an even more eventful air force career, becoming at 24 the RAAF's youngest group captain (equivalent of full colonel in the army), barely escaping with his life in a runway collision, and playing a key role in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945. Oh yes, the RAAF in World War II had it all: aces, Victoria Crosses, petty squabbling at the highest levels, and mutiny! Dive in and let me know what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

@Ian Rose: It is wonderful to see a FA nomination from you, and I will give comments over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations generally should not go in the lede, and seeing as the same information is repeated in the body, I would remove the lede citations.
    • There's a slight difference in that the lead mentions/cites his most common nickname and in the main body I list/cite all of them, but I might be able to effectively combine them in the main body -- let me see...
  • "after Australia declared war in September 1939" A little vague: I recommend mentioning which specific war this was.
    • I mention World War II in the preceding paragraph.
I still think the phrasing is odd. "Declared" implies that Australia specifically declared war against one or more nations, and while this may be true, I think something like "joined the war" would be more appropriate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "son of stock inspector Stanley Oswald Darley Arthur" Is this an instance of false title?
    • It fits the definition but it's pretty standard usage in Australian English (whereas I know it ends to be frowned upon in BritEng).

More to follow shortly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Helena Elizabeth Chaffers-Welsh, who was born on the Isle of Wight" Is this relevant/necessary?
    • I think it's common to give parents' background in bios. I could simplify to "English" or "English-born" if you prefer.
  • "His early education was by correspondence" With whom?
    • That's a fair question, the source doesn't specify. I'm not averse to just taking it out if you think best.
  • "he also excelled in sports" Do we know which sports specifically?
    • I think I could expand on that, yes.
  • "Arthur was promoted to flying officer on 3 September" Do we know why?
    • No specific reason is given; it was standard for a new recruit to be raised to that rank after 12–18 months as a pilot officer.
  • "No. 3 Squadron eventually re-located to Sidi Haneish in Egypt on 12 April, having retreated 500 miles (800 km) and operated from nine airfields in ten days" Is there supposed to be a comma before "and"?
    • I'm not sure about that, I think it works better without...
  • Link Anglican?
    • Fair enough.
  • "not released until a ransom was paid—reportedly an Olivetti typewriter" What does this mean? Was he released in exchange for this typewriter?
    • This is how the newspaper source puts it. There is another news report that states the ransom was medical supplies, I could add that.

The article looks like a fine one to me; I will allow someone else more proficient in millitary terminology to give it a more thorough run-through. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Unlimitedlead! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks fine; I have given one response. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think all done now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Possibly inform readers which country the Isle of Wight is/was in?
    • Can do, or per my reply to Unlimitedlead above, maybe simply refer to her as "English" or "English-born"?
  • "Luftwaffe" is these days considered a normal English word. If you wish to treat it as a German word, it needs to be in a lang template.
    • You know I think had it without italics when I took to ACR back in the day and then I changed it when re-visiting the article lately -- happy to drop the italics again.
  • "the Germans launched their offensive in March". Perhaps "their" → 'an'?
    • Okay.
  • "the Allied aircraft encountered twenty Messerschmitts". Is it known how many were 109s and how many 110s?
    • I'll double-check one or two other sources but the current one just uses the generic.
  • "Stuka" needs a lang template.
    • Okay.

And that is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
IB
  • Shouldn't it be "Group captain", rather than "Group Captain"?
    • Yeah, a bit iffy this one. Sentence case would prevail in the main body but in an infobox I see it as more like a service record statement, and then it's usually proper case.
Early life
  • "swimming, athletics and shooting.[3][5] Known by his father's forename in youth, Arthur later gained an array of appellations including "Bandy", "Wilf", "Wolf",[5] and "Wulf",[8]": no serial comma followed in the next list by the presence of one: I won't point out the subsequent ones, but it should, of course, be consistent throughout.
    • Fair enough, I'll go through and try to keep consistent one way or t'other.
Middle East
  • "re-located" is shown as one word in the OED, although AusEng use may differ
  • Ditto for "re-joined"
    • I'm pretty sure AusEng is okay with hyphenating.
South-West Pacific
  • "advancing on the Philippiness" typo, I presume?
    • Bloody hell, I presume too...!

That's it – all rather small little quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Hey Ian, always enjoy reading your RAAF bios!

  • A (very) brief description of the Morotai Mutiny would be helpful in the lead.
    • I've had a go, see what you think.
  • son of stock inspector Stanley That's a false title; whether or not it's a problem depends on your point of view
    • It seems pretty common in AusEng, certainly in several of my sources.
  • According to Mark Johnston who is Johnston that his opinions are relevant? I know he's linked but don't force the reader to click away.
    • Sure -- done (although you are giving me the excuse for another false title)...!
  • military unjustifiable operations → militarily?
    • Well spotted -- done.
  • Anything known about his wife/married life?
    • The sources don't give much more info and I feel we have a fair amount, i.e. wife's name/nationality, where they met/married, children...

That's it from me, and that's being extra pedantic to find something to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

This looks good in terms of the Supports / pending Supports and has had an image review. Does it need a Source review - I'm a little rusty on this? Assuming it does, I'd be pleased to undertake it. Can have it done by the weekend at the latest. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could certainly do with a source review if you've a mind, thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review complete - and passed
Criteria - well-researched / consistent citations
  • Yes.
Quality - Reliability / High quality
  • I'm not an expert in this space but, for me, the sources used look to be of high quality, with reputable publishers, include recent scholarship in addition to some of the older "standard" works such as the official war history, and, as far as I can tell, comprehensively cover the article subject. Given the main author's experience, I am confident that the best sources will have been deployed.
Source checks - Verifiability / Spot checks
Spot checks
Many moons ago, the late BB told me I didn't need to list cites I'd spot-checked if there weren't issues. More recently, it was suggested that including these was helpful, to allow the check to be replicated etc. I can see the logic of that and have done so here. The ones with queries, very few, are self-evident. KJP1 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, KJP1. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
  • National Archives of Australia (Cites 3/34/42/45ab/71/74) - Unfortunately, none of the links to the NAA material, specifically Arthur's Personnel file and the Record Books, are working for me. I get either Timeout or Refusal to connect messages. I'm satisfied I have enough sources that I can do an appropriate spot-check without them, but if they don't work for me, they likely won't work for, at least some, others. I don't know if anything can be done with these?
  • That's odd, naturally I double-checked all the links in the References section before submitting for FAC and they all worked for me, including the items from the National Archives. I've just re-checked and they still work for me. There are items at the National Archives you need to be logged in (as a guest at least) to access, but the operations books and personnel files are not in that basket, so in theory anyone should be able to get at them...
It is odd. I’ve now tried two iPads, my iPhone, a laptop and my desktop pc. None of them can connect to the NAA sources. Above my pay grade, I’m afraid. KJP1 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if SchroCat or Harry could try the National Archives reference links when they revisit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to the online links either - that's either from here or going via a Canadian proxy that I sometimes use. It may be that the NAA online access is limited to Australia? No other idea, I'm afraid. In terms of visiting: I don't get to the National Archives in Kew much - my researches are more at the British Library I'm afraid... - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, HJ Mitchell - I suspect SchroCat's right and that it's a geolocation issue. If Harry can't get in either... But coming back here does give Schro and Harry the opportunity to formally record their Supports! KJP1 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would be my guess as well. I can't access it either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my support already - a bit further up! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys! My bad. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Curiouser and curiouser, I just tried using a UK proxy and it worked for me... Under other circumstances I'd assume I was permanently logged in or something but I don't actually have an NAA ID, I only ever log in as a guest and that's a very temporary thing, so I don't think that's it. I'm happy to look further into this with the NAA when this nom closes, and of course if anyone wants a snapshot of a page to spotcheck in the meantime I can arrange that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian - no need for copies, I'm absolutely fine with the good number of sources I was able to check. It's just a pity for those readers that might want to delve further into the source material but can't. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book sources - Again, I don't have direct access to these, but I'm satisfied that the online sources, including the book sources where you've helpfully given PDFs, give me enough to go on.
  • Specific
  • Cite 1 - Y
  • Cite 2a - ? - This is used to support the first sentence of Early Life. However, I can't see anything in the source that covers the content, i.e. Arthur's parentage. Is it needed here?
  • You're right, Garrisson adds nothing here, will remove.
  • Cites 2bik- Y
  • Cite 4 - Y
  • Cite 5a - Y (it actually also supports details of his parents, except mother's full name, see 2/3 above)
  • Would you say that any action is required here?
Nope!
  • Cites 5fil - Y
  • Cite 6 - Y
  • Cite 7 - Y
  • Cites 12ac - Y
  • Cite 25 - Y
  • Cite 36 - Y
  • Cite 40 - Y
  • Cite 41c - Y
  • Cites 43ab - Y
  • Cites 55ab - Y? - The archive checks out fine, though the original doesn't work for me.
  • I have to admit I only ensured the archived links worked, partly because I've often found that the original link was never updated and only the archive would work.
  • Cite 63 - Y
  • Cites 65de - Y
  • Cite 67 - Y
  • Cite 73 - Y
  • Cite 79 - Y
  • Cite 80 - Y
  • Cites 82ab - Y
  • Cite 83 - Y
  • Cite 84 - Y
  • Cite 85 - Y
  • Cite 86 - Y? - The archive checks out fine, though the original takes me to Page not found.
  • Cite 87 - Y? - As above, archive copy is fine, but link to original doesn't work for me.
  • Cite 88 - Y
Summary - With the exception of 2a, which was minor anyway and Ian's already addressed, all the sources I could check out on the spot-check were absolutely on the button.
Formatting
  • ISBNs - I don't think (?) it's an FA requirement, but we have a mix of 10-digit and 13-digit ISBNs. They are also set out in slightly different formats, i.e. they are hyphenated in different ways. Personally, I think consistency is desirable, i.e. either 10 or 13 digits and in a consistent way e.g. 978-1-454-17352-1. Or any other way that you may prefer.
  • I try to always use 13-digit ISBNs if available in the relevant edition, but if they only have 10-digit ones then I'll use that and not run the convertor to update them to 13-digit. That said, I'm happy to double-check that that is in fact what I've done consistently.
Ian - I can see the logic and, as I say, it's not a criteria requirement, so very happy to go with your preferred approach. KJP1 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for encouraging me to check these, I found in two cases I was using a 10-digit ISBN when a 13-digit was available in my edition. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirtsen Alexander, Clive Caldwell - The ISBN is taking me to the 2007 e-book version on Worldcat. The 2006 print copy is given as 978-1-741-14705-6 here, [5]. I'm not sure which one's been used?
  • It was an online version, will double-check the relevant ISBN.
  • Wilfred Arthur, Interview - I wonder if it would be helpful to give the full name of the interviewer, Edward Stokes, as detailed in the transcript. I got a bit confused with Ed Stokes, thinking initially that it meant Editor Stokes.
  • Quite right -- done.
  • Mark Johnston, Whispering Death - Here, you've not blue-linked the publisher but elsewhere, e.g. Alexander above, you have. There are other examples, e.g. the National Archives are both linked and not. I think they should be consistent, one way or another.
  • What I try to do is link each publisher (assuming wiki-notable) on first use, as we would in the lead or body -- I think I've been consistent doing that?
Ah, link on first mention. Understood and makes sense. NFA. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lex McAulay, Against Four Enemies - the isbn here is taking me to a different book on Worldcat, albeit by the same author, titled Anzac to Zentsuji : the military career of Colonel Jack Scanlan DSO, MID, [6]. Not sure why?
  • Again, will double-check my Kindle edition.
  • Alan Stephens, The Royal Australian Air Force - The location is given as London. It's OUP and Worldcat says Oxford/Melbourne, which sounds more likely?
  • This one is a hard copy in my collection, will check.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Very happy to pass the Source Review. The "issues" I found are minor and Ian is already addressing them. My inability to access the National Australian Archive is a pity, but not essential for these purposes. It would be good, however, if another UK-based editor could try them, to confirm that they work for them. Then I'll know it's my tech that's at fault! A grand article, Ian, and I look forward to its passing. KJP1 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much KJP1, that was quite a bit of work for you and I appreciate it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

[edit]
  • This review may be a bit redundant in light of the supports above, but surely another couldn't hurt...
  • Lead: ...Arthur enlisted in the Air Force the day...: why not use RAAF instead of Air Force?
  • Lead: ...following his discharge from the Air Force after the war,...: ditto
    • "Air Force" was for variation but I don't mind "RAAF" in those spots -- done.
  • Middle East: Arthur was among a detachment of six pilots deployed to Cyprus...: link Cyprus?
    • Generally don't link countries but as this was British Cyprus at the time I've linked to that -- tks for making me check!
  • South-West Pacific: (i.e. Pretends not to be): I wonder if it is worthwhile to add [sic] after Pretends; I assume the emphasis is in the original source?
    • The source (Johnston) presents it as I have, without [sic], so I thought best leave as is.
  • South-West Pacific: Not sure if it is a thing for you or not, but the cites are out of order here: and took charge of No. 2 OTU on 3 August.[65][14]
    • That was inadvertent, tks for spotting -- changed.
  • South-West Pacific: link Air Commodore?
    • I prefer not to have separate blue links together, even though it's first use for the rank.
  • South-West Pacific: Arthur handed over command of No. 78 Wing to Group Captain Rawlinson: maybe reinforce this is the Rawlinson previously mentioned (or infer it by dropping the Group Captain)?
    • I think it's worth mentioning his rank at this stage so I can add "Alan" to clarify.
  • Later life and legacy: Arthur was discharged from the Permanent Air Force: this is the first mention of the "Permanent Air Force", perhaps just refer to the RAAF instead?
    • Yeah, the source explicitly says Permanent Air Force and I liked it as distinguishing from the Reserve but I grant you it kinda pops out of nowhere here. If I could find a source explicitly saying he was commissioned into the PAF in 1938, I'd add that at the appropriate spot but there seems to be no Commonwealth Gazette entry for that, so will drop "Permanent".

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy in support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:59, 27 March 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2023 [7].

State of Grace (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2012 song by America's queen of heartbreak songs, Taylor Swift. This song finds Ms. Swift embracing stadium rock shamelessly. Though it was never released as a single, it has earned a reputation among critics for being one of her best songs. I think this article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced to satisfy FA criteria. Would appreciate any and all comments on how to improve it further. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Chris

[edit]
  • "evoked by the first sights of love." seems odd wording to me. What are "sights of love"? Should it be "first signs of love"? (in both lead and body)
  • ""State of Grace" peaked within the top-50" - no reason for hyphen
  • ""State of Grace (Taylor's Version)" peaked within the top-10" - same here
  • "and top-25 in Australia" - and here :-)
  • "Speak Now continues the country pop sound on Swift's last records" => "Speak Now continued the country pop sound of Swift's previous records"
  • "Chapman remained a key personnel" - "a personnel" isn't really a thing. I would suggest "a key collaborator"
  • "Hank Williams mastered the track" - good to see her getting a country music legend involved (only joking :-))
  • "She later performed the song at Z100 Jingle Ball" => "She later performed the song at the Z100 Jingle Ball"
  • "On the July 10, 2018, concert at" => "At the July 10, 2018, concert in"
  • Does everything in the Music and lyrics section cover both the 2012 and 2021 versions? Is there anything notably different about the 2021 version?
  • "and the conflicting emotions ensued" => "and the conflicting emotions which ensue"
  • "Jason Lipshutz from Billboard lauded" - you just used the verb "laud" in the previous sentence, suggest picking a different word here
  • "Upon its initial 2012 release, "State of Grace" charted on in" - "on in"?
  • "peaking within the top-50 in Australia" - as before
  • "denoting of 500,000 track-equivalent units" => "denoting 500,000 track-equivalent units"
  • "peaking within the top-25 of Ireland" - guess :-)
  • None of the notes need full stops as they are not complete sentences
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick review, ChrisTheDude. I've addressed your comments accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]
  • Suggest replacing CNET with a different source (which seems quite possible given the material cited) as there is no consensus regarding its reliability post-October 2020 per WP:CNET.
  • CTV News ref is a republished version of a CNN article; suggest citing the original CNN article instead
  • ProQuest page numbers – can remove the period between the letter and number; it's ProQuest formatting, not the original (E3 not E.3)
  • suggest removing URL to ProQuest document as it is duplicative of the identifier Template:ProQuest.
  • I tried to look into {{ProQuest}} but apparently it is only supported by the parameter |id=. Ippantekina (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what do you mean here? Both the URL and id= link to the same place. It is not necessary to have a URL when the id= exists. Heartfox (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Then |access-date= and |url-access= will become null. I've made amendments to the Clayton-Lea ref for you to see what I mean. I wouldn't prefer this option as it leaves out the two said parameters which I think are important; specifically the latter that tells readers to expect the URL requires registration. But if the consensus is to remove the |url= parameter then I have no problems. Ippantekina (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Template:Cite web says that "It is not necessary to specify a URL to a link identical to a link also produced by an identifier." I would either chose to have |url=, |url-access=, |access-date=, plus via=ProQuest, or just the identifier. I don't see it as necessary, but you could also add {{Subscription required}} following |id=. Heartfox (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final promotional single" → final not supported by refs cited
  • "Several critics highlighted the maturity of Swift's songwriting" → several implies more than two critics, but only two are given
  • Spencer seems to be citing page 124 not a8. It doesn't say that Swift/Chapman produced the acoustic version.
  • not sure Clayton-Lea supports the sentence. It appears to be Clayton-Lea not Clayton-Tea

Heartfox (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox, I've addressed your comments accordingly. Ippantekina (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passess the source review. Thanks for your cooperation and good luck with the nom! If you have time, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Don't Wanna Cry/archive1 could use some more eyes :) Heartfox (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think it would be beneficial to add an audio sample to the article. Was there a reason why File:Taylor Swift - State of Grace song sample.ogg was removed? I think a sample would helpful to illustrate the arena rock aspect in particular, especially since that gets a substantial amount of focus in the article and some readers may be less than familiar with that genre.
  • I felt the descriptions of the track can be conveyed through words, but "feedback-drenched guitars" might be hard to conceptualize so I added back the sample. Hopefully its usage is justified. Ippantekina (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row, (Swift performed "State of Grace" live) and (She later performed the song), use "performed", and I would recommend varying the word choice to avoid unnecessary repetition.
  • For this part, (Sean Daly of the Tampa Bay Times agreed, but remarked that it was "bold regardless".), I would avoid using "agreed" in this context as it could give off the impression that Daly is explicitly agreeing with the previous critic (in this case Jonathan Keefe) in his review. I get that it is intended as a transition, but I would avoid it in this kind of context.
  • For the "100 Best Deep Cuts by 21st Century Pop Stars" list, the author for the "State of Grace" entry is known (i.e. Andrew Unterberger) so he should be attributed in the prose.

This is everything that I have noticed so far. I will do a few more read-throughs over the weekend, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major. I hope that my comments above are helpful, and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47 I'll get back to you asap. Have a nice weekend! Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response and take as much time as you need. I hope you have a great weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba47, I have addressed your first round of comments. Let me know if there's anything left to address. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose. I've only looked at prose but I really can't find anything worth picking holes in. Not one of my favourite Swift songs but this article is certainly written to a professional, engaging standard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 18 March 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 March 2023 [8].

Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s. It was never prominent, but it did publish material by some well-known writers, such as Harlan Ellison and Robert Silverberg. It's short, but I've included everything I can find about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Chris

[edit]

Image review

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are suitable, and although there aren't many of them, seem adequate for the article based on my attempts to find more.
  • Optionally, use IABot (if it's working) or add an archive url for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction source manually. (If you choose not to, then you could remove "url-status=live" from the citation.)
  • Optionally, author-link Brian Stableford, Mike Ashley (writer), Larry Shaw (editor), Donald H. Tuck and Robert Weinberg (author)
  • Spot checks to follow.
    Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All done; I only added the first instance for the author-links in the reference list as I don't see any reason to repeat the link when they're alphabetical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shaw source isn't used in the footnotes. (Seems to me that it should be be added after "...be an antidote for that situation'"). The Shaw quote is indeed in that source.
  • Spot check on Cook (1983) - no issue.
  • Spot check on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Six of Silverberg's early novels first saw print in SF Adventures - no issues.
  • Spot checks on Ashley (2005) (Silverberg was by far the most prolific contributor, providing over a quarter of the contents of the magazine, and Ashley considers that Shaw intended to attract younger readers than Infinity was aimed at) - no issues.
  • Not a source issue, but Mike Ashley (writer) could be linked in the article body.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I expect to get to this later. Given the size of the article, though, I may be able to complete this review relatively quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • "which had been launched the previous year" - Launched the year before Science Fiction Adventures launched, I assume?
    Yes; I made this "in 1955", to be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other well-known writers occasionally appeared" - Given that the magazine only had 12 issues in total, I wonder whether "occasionally" means "one or two issues", or whether it means "sporadically throughout the magazine's run".
    In some cases I think these writers had only one story in the magazine -- I don't think the timing is as relevant to a reader as the fact that Shaw was at times able to acquire material from good writers. The article is so short that I didn't feel it was necessary to summarize Ashley's comments about quality (in the second paragraph of the contents section), but I could add a little if you think this is opaque. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a clarification to that extent would be much appreciated. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, I didn't realize that the magazine only had 12 total issues until the end of the first paragraph. Perhaps this fact could be made more prominent.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the sister magazine, Infinity" - Doesn't the article already mention that Infinity was the sister magazine to Science Fiction Adventures?
    Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history and contents
  • "In 1955, Irwin Stein, the owner of Royal Publications, decided to launch two magazines: Infinity Science Fiction and Suspect Detective Stories. ... he simply retitled Suspect to Science Fiction Adventures" - I'm a little confused. Was Science Fiction Adventures the continuation of Suspect, or was Science Fiction Adventures just reusing Suspect's volume numbering scheme?
    It is confusing. Suspect was really nothing to do with Science Fiction Adventures, but when Stein gave up on Suspect after five issues and decided to launch SFA he didn't want to spend the time or money to get a new second-class mailing permit. The Post Office didn't mind if a magazine's title changed -- see Saturn for example, which changed several times and ended up nothing like the original magazine. But in that case the changes were fairly gradual. Here Stein kept the old volume numbering but changed everything else about the magazine, so evidently the USPS decided that Stein was just starting a completely new magazine and told him he had to get a new mailing permit. When he did, he gave up the façade of the old numbering and just made the second one volume 1 number 2. I didn't want to go into a long digression about this in the article, and some parts of the explanation I can't really source anyway. Do you think it needs to be clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after rereading the article, I find that the situation isn't as confusing as I thought. It seems to me that the USPS didn't require a new second-class mailing permit for magazines that were merely renamed, but that the USPS did require a new second-class mailing permit for completely new magazines, which is understandable. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 issues between 1952 and 1954" - I would spell this out as "nine issues" per MOS:NUMERAL
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US Post Office" - Could this be linked to the United States Postal Service?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the stories rarely exceeded 20,000 words" - Is the 20,000-word figure referring to the typical length of novels at the time?
    No, even a short novel would have been 40,000 or more words; I think a typical paperback of the day would have been around 55,000 words. I think all he's saying is that these were clearly not really novels. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " so in 1957, when he decided to increase the magazines' frequency" - Judging by the Bibliographical details section, I assume this change occurred in the middle of that year (between June and August)?
    In fact the gap between April and June was the first shortened gap. I could put the details in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that would make sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Towards the end of the magazine's run" - I'd clarify that this is towards the end of the American magazine's run. This sentence comes right after the British magazine is mentioned, so the phrase "the magazine" has no clear referent.
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text never explicitly says when the last issue was printed, but the Bibliographical details section indicates that the magazine ceased publication in June 1958.
    Clarified in the bibliographic section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographical details
  • " the numbering was completely regular" - This could potentially be confusing, since "completely regular" could mean that the second issue was 1/7, the third issue was 1/8, etc. But, since there's a table on the right, there's nothing wrong with this per se.
    OK -- I did put in the "thereafter" to make that clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
That's really all that I have. It's a short article, but a nice one. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. There are only a few things that need to be addressed, but otherwise I think this is good enough for the bronze star. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like two things left? I think this takes care of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - these changes look good. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Will review this soon. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [[digest-size]] [[science fiction magazine]] is a bit MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    Removed the first link. I usually put those in because sometimes people ask about it, but you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sf historian" looks a bit funny. I realise that you are using uppercase and lowercase "sf", "SF", "Sf" just as the word "science fiction" would be written. Is this standard practice or your personal style?
    "sf" is the standard abbreviation used by nearly all the standard references; "SF" occurs too but is less common. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Suspect Detective Stories. As it is a red link, can you tell us a little bit about its content in addition to the editorial history? (Did it indeed feature detective stories?)
    There are a couple of quotes about it, from Ashley and Cook; do you think we need more? I do have a source that covers it (Cook) but he only has a page on it and if/when I do create that article it's going to be very short. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that it indeed covered exclusively mystery detective stories, it is probably sufficient.
    I reread Cook and he says "fast-action, contemporary, crime adventures", so I added ""action-adventure crime fiction" to the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the US Post Office care about the numbering scheme?
    See my answer to Epicgenius above. Since you're asking too, I think I probably do have to expand this, but let me know what you think after reading the explanation above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please explain the issue with the new second-class mailing permit so we understand the context of "deceived".
    Expanded this a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether the long "publication history and content" section could be split up (by moving the "In Shaw's first editorial" paragraph to a new section).
    For longer articles I usually have a "Publication history" section and a "Contents" section, since the two narratives (one about the business, one about the writing) really don't overlap much. I didn't think I had enough material to do that here, but I've tried it as you suggest: see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is better, although "Editorial policy and contents" or "Content and editorial attitude" or something would describe the new section more precisely.
    I usually title these sections either "Contents" or "Contents and reception"; here there's not much reception information. I think editorial approaches are naturally discussed as part of magazine content, since after all the editor is the reason the content is the way it is, so I'd like to leave it with the shorter title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six of Silverberg's early novels": a glance at Robert Silverberg bibliography suggests we might have articles about some of them, so they could be mentioned?
    The source doesn't name them, and a look at a couple of references doesn't make it obvious which ones they were, so I'm reluctant to do more original research. Stableford (the source) is probably referring to Lest We Forget Thee, Earth as one of them, but he doesn't say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Lest We Forget Thee, Earth
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth adjusting the 35 cents for inflation?
    I don't think so -- it's easy to do if you think I should, but the reader can tell it's a small amount and wouldn't be surprised by the inflated equivalent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    Sure, makes sense. Indeed more interesting context would be the price of other magazines at the time.
    It was a typical price, but unfortunately I don't really have a source that talks about the prices across the market -- I know it's typical because I can look up the price of all the competing magazines in the various sources. If I run across something like that I'll add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little article. I hope you find something useful in these comments. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so; thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses interspersed above (the ones I don't respond to again are all fine); the main remaining issue from my side is the "deception" of the post office. —Kusma (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of additions made and responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all of my small concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history
Contents
  • "[wasn't]": as this isn't part of the direct quote, shouldn't it be "was not"?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Shaw's editorial in the first issue, he lamented that science fiction was losing a sense of wonder, and "[wasn't] as much fun to read as it used to be", and claimed that by focusing on adventure fiction "carried by a good story", Science Fiction Adventures would "be an antidote for that situation".[7]" This is a bit of a long and clumsy with the "and ... and". Could do with a bit of refining?
    Split into two sentences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "volume 1 number 6 because of Stein's attempt to make the magazine a continuation" You've already covered this above
    I'd like to leave this as is, though you're right that it's covered earlier. To me the point of a bibliographic section like this is to collect all the minutiae that would clog up the narrative if included in the earlier sections. Having a section like that is less useful if it omits anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – a great read, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, my support will hardly be necessary at this stage but I was missing Mike's SF mag articles and need my fix... ;-)

  • As ever, let me know any concerns at all with my habitual copyedit.
  • Content-wise, at this stage I'm just wondering if we could mention some example stories by Ellison, Budrys, Kornbluth, Harrison, or Brunner. I get that the main name in terms of contributions was Silverberg but if Ellison was a regular too it'd be fair to mention one or two of his stories, and if any of the less numerous contributions from the others were notable (I guess I'm saying Wiki-notable, and of course they might not be)...

Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit looks fine, as always. Re the stories: neither of the two sources gives titles, instead just listing the authors' names as notable contributors. The only reliable source I could use to get story titles is this, which is an index; I could easily go through the content listings and find the stories by those names, and mention them in the article. I probably can't say anything about the stories themselves, though, unless I can then find discussion of those stories elsewhere (which is possible). Without the main sources naming stories, do you think this is worthwhile? Usually I limit myself to naming stories singled out by the secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike, I realise it was a bit of a long shot...! I think your approach is correct, i.e. basing mentions on what the secondary sources allow. A lot of my stuff is packed away at present, I take it there was nothing worth grabbing from Billion/Trillion Year Spree or Holdstock's Encyclopedia? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that's not already covered -- Aldiss doesn't mention the magazine at all, and Ashley's article in the Holdstock Encyclopedia just mentions it in passing while talking about the UK edition. I did consider merging the Science Fiction Adventures (British magazine) article in with this, as in origin the UK version was just a reprint edition, but the UK edition eventually turned into a completely separate magazine. This is a very short article, and the UK one is probably going to be so short I won't take it past GA, so on length grounds they could be merged, but on balance I think they're independent enough to be separate articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that's a support from me then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 22 March 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) 26 March 2023 [9].

A History of British Fishes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat to my surprise, there doesn't appear to be any article on Wikipedia about a fish book, so to remedy that I bring you William Yarrell's landmark publication that was the standard in its field for much of the 19th century Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:William_Yarrell._Photograph_by_Maull_%26_Polyblank._Wellcome_V0027361.jpg: license provided doesn't match source
  • File:Jonathan_Couch.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A pleasure to read and review this article. I share the nominator's surprise that this is our first article on a book about fish, and am glad that the first is so good. A handful of quibbles, none of which affect my support:

  • Lead
  • "describing every type of fish known to occur in Britain" – does "Britain" here mean the UK, including Ireland, as it did then? And also, does it include offshore territorial waters? Or even the UK continental shelf (if the legal distinction was made in Yarrell's day, that is)?
  • "commemorated in a number of species" – a bit woolly: if the actual number of species is known it would be good to mention it. Even "in at least x species" would be an improvement.
  • Format
  • "he naturally followed the older man's format" – the adverb looks a wee bit editorial.
  • The blockquote – we don't, I think, usually put blockquotes in italics.
  • Production and publication
  • "to shoot and fish around London" – this would, I think, benefit from a little expansion. In Yarrell's day London technically meant just the City: all the rest was in Middx, Surrey and Kent. I don't know where the nobs used to shoot or fish in the areas of those counties nearest the urban bits, but something on the lines of "on estates near London", or even actual place names, might be beneficial here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
  • "There was a generally appreciative reception from Yarrell's fellow naturalists, too" – a very minor stylistic point, but to my mind the "too" doesn't add anything useful and is redundant.

That's my lot. I am glad to support the elevation of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Interest in natural history was growing rapidly in the early nineteenth century". Would it be worth putting a geographical restriction on this?
  • Is it known how many copies were printed for any of the editions?
  • "Bewick had himself planned to ..." I'm not sure about "himself". Who else could he be?

That's all. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Adding this to my list of things to review. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: for an ignoramus like me with no idea who Thomas Bewick is, it is a bit hard to understand how the book follows his lead. Just making it "the example of Thomas Bewick's natural history books" would be enough to clarify.
  • Format (or "Format and content"?): Were any of the species previously unknown/unpublished? Is Bewick's swan seems the only species named by Yarrell? (It is the only one on Wikispecies, for whatever it's worth) Are there other particularly interesting species (anything extinct, for example) worth commenting on?
  • As far as I can see there were no fish species identified by Yarrell, there were a couple of other birds, now only subspecies, beyond the scope of this fish article I think. Similarly, he had a Great Auk egg and some books on fossils, but appears to have had no significant collection extinct species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK.
  • Other resources: "in the major London's important Leadenhall Market" sounds a bit garbled
  • Production and publication: are we sure they were "the best wood engravers in London"? (Says who?)
  • Reception: I wonder if it is worth tracking down the contemporary reviews and citing from them directly. I found the Gentleman's Magazine one, which says among other things "the work before us is, perhaps, the most perfect of its kind", which is perhaps a nice quote. Here is an insanely long article in the Quarterly Review from 1837.
  • Do we know who named the fish species after Yarrell and why? It would be good to know whether these names were related to the present book.
  • Checking this, I found a genus named for him too. As always with taxa, the names and date of the people who named the species are known, but all are obscure and the accessible documentation amounts at most to saying that they were named in honour of him. Adding the names, with nothing substantial to justify doing so, seems unnecessary clutter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: I do not particularly like the inline external links to MeasuringWorth; any reason why you prefer this over our in-house {{Inflation}}?
  • Bibliography: The A History of British Fishes section is a bit inconsistent about commas and whether to write volume with a v or a V.
  • Images: The seahorses are great, but I'm not convinced they belong here.

An enjoyable article, and most of my points are quite minor. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma All done I think, thanks for reviewing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My queries have been dealt with / answered satisfactorily. Support. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What is your citation for the various 2021 inflation figures?
  • FN1 is missing both author and publication date. Ditto FN21, check throughout
  • Why is there a separate Cited texts vs Bibliography section? Is the latter intended to be a Further reading section? One of the entries in Bibliography is cited.

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC
Lead
  • "William Yarrell was a London": just "Yarrell" – as you've named full named him above?
  • "by John Thompson, and three editions and their two supplements": that's a comma splice. Semi-colon maybe?
Author
  • "His father": William's or Francis's?
Written sources
  • How does History of British Quadrupeds include British fish?!
  • "species of fishes": "species of fish"?
  • "£1100": I think I'm right in saying that 1100 should be 1,100 (ditto £4000 lower down). Ignore me if I'm misremembering the arcane meanderings of the MOS.
  • Leadenhall Market: this surprised me, as it was better known as a meat, game and cheese market. Billigsgate Market would be a better fit for a fish aficionado, but if that's what the sources say, then who am I who pipe up!

That's my lot – I had to scratch around for these as it's written to the usual high standard I expect from your noms. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 25 March 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) 26 March 2023 [10].

Bennerley Viaduct

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something a little bit different for me. Here we have a long-disused railway bridge in the English East Midlands, an area that was once a hive of industrial activity but there is little left to suggest it these days. The bridge was built as part of an attempt by a railway company to break its rival's monopoly on the area and carried trains for 90 years before it fell victim to the infamous Beeching Axe. After sitting neglected until last year, it is now in use again for pedestrians and cyclists. It has a certain significance to me as my grandmother lives a few miles away. I owe huge thanks to Dumelow for his help with the technical description, Peter I. Vardy for consulting Pevsner, and Wikimedia UK, who funded several of the books in the bibliography. I've largely rewritten the article, which at one point was as poorly maintained as its subject, and I think it meets the criteria but as always I'm grateful for any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
None whatsoever for the first; it's clearly PD. Unable to find a DOD on the second and it's not that important anyway so I've removed it. Thanks Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Background
  • "Dee Bridge disaster": you could probably use a comma after disaster, but I'll leave it to your discretion
    • Done.
  • "Among several branches, one left the main line just east of Awsworth": I'm not 100 per cent sure what you're saying here. Is it that "one of the company's many branches left the main line just east of Awsworth"?
    • Yes, I've reworded slightly. See what you think.
  • "Awsworth ... Erewash Valley ... Bennerley Ironworks ... Bennerley Viaduct ... Nottingham and Derby" Some form of map would be useful here, although the new skin means that (on my screen at least) the infobox is running past this section and only ends alongside the images from The Engineer. Not too much you can do about it really – the IB contains everything I would expect it too with nothing superfluous in there, so any more images in this part would just be clutter.
  • "Samuel Abbott": Should it also be red-linked in the lead if you're doing so here? (I don't know about the guidelines on the matter, but consistency is something to bear in mind.
    • Probably.
Appreciation
  • Bennerly "more attractive" than Meldon? Tish and pish – they know nothing, this Biddle and Nock!
    • You want to tell that to one of the most famous railway historians ever? ;) Personally I think Meldon has a more dramatic setting but Bennerley is easier to appreciate from the valley floor
  • Just wondering whether the Appreciation section would be better after the History—or even Restoration—section? Worth a thought and I leave it entirely to your discretion.
    • Might see what anyone else thinks of this. The style is adapted from some of my war memorial articles and I think it fits nicely with the description so we know what's being appreciated, but I can see an argument for moving it further down.

That's my lot – an interesting article that I enjoyed very much. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, SchroCat! Glad you liked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Looks interesting, and the viaduct is in bicycling distance for me, so I'll have to check this out in real life. Will review soonish. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: The word ashlar was new to me, which is probably because I am a foreigner. Worth linking? It is linked in the body.
  • Second paragraph with lots of short sentences starting with "Its" or "It" reads a bit choppy
  • Background: "keen to expand westwards to exploit the coal fields" this sounds almost as if the railway company wanted to do coal mining; do you mean "to take advantage of"?
  • "The Midland already occupied" is it normal to shorten the Midland Railway to just "Midland"? It is mildly confusing for something happening in the Midlands.
  • Description: "The design was apparently based on the Viaduc de Busseau" who finds this apparent? (I'm curious how the 1877 source describes this).
  • Appreciation: This section (which might work better at the end of the article) also has comparisons to similar viaducts in England. Do you need the {{clear}} at the end? (In my personal settings it would look better without).
  • Restoration: do we know why British Rail wanted to demolish it even after it became listed?
A note for Harry: The Rail Engineer article states that it was because children were risking their lives trespassing on it and notes that several people were injured in falls between its abandonment and restoration - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rivetted" usually with one t?

Just some minor points, overall it reads fine. Interesting that instead of trying to figure out more about the ground, they just built a special type of bridge. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusma, I really appreciate your input. I hope you manage to ride to it soon, it's well worth a look. I believe I've addressed everything you mentioned, except that "Midland" is the almost universal abbreviation for the Midland Railway. I've also moved the appreciation section down (courtesy ping for SchroCat, who also suggested it). Let me know if anything else stands out to you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes, I think there is only the question of the connection to the French viaduct left. And one of the photos (File:Bennerley Viaduct from below 04.jpg) makes me slightly nauseous: is it possible to rotate it a bit? Or do I have to go there myself to see if I can do a straight version? —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I've attributed that now. There's no reason to doubt it, it's just only mentioned in one source, which doesn't specify where the information came from. Feel free to edit the photo if you can, or to take a better one (though try standing where I was stood and you'll see the height and length of the viaduct make it difficult not to rotate the camera!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is better. Interestingly enough, the French article mentions that the Crumlin Viaduct was the first of this type, but five minutes of skim-reading what I think is the source for that statement did not show a strong connection there either. I tried some crop&rotate with GIMP, but I'm not yet satisfied enough to upload them; maybe I'll check with someone more capable in these matters and try again. Anyway, happy to support on prose/content. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "It was once part of a chain of bridges and embankments carrying the railway across the valley". Is the total length of these known?
    • Yes, added.
  • "Plans to demolish the viaduct". Is it known when these were formulated?
    • There was more than one set of plans and I didn't want to bog the lead down with a series of failed proposals. Happy to meet you in the middle if you think it's important.
  • "It opened to the public as part of a cycling and walking route in 2022." Is the month known?
    • Added.
  • "The crossing of the River Erewash and its wide, flat valley required a bespoke solution." Could we have some background on railways in the area and the reasons behind the construction of this line? Moving much of the second and third paragraphs up may address much of this. A lot seems to read in reverse chronological order.
    • I've rearranged it a bit. See what you think. They started as logically separate paragraphs but they started to bleed into each other as the article developed.
  • "The valley is". Is, was or both?
    • I think both is reasonable. It is boggy, it is largely flat; that's still true today. It was approached on embankments but those are gone now.
  • "are poorly mapped". Similarly.
    • I'll give you that. They probably still are but nobody has tried to build anything like this since and modern technology would probably make things easier.
  • "The ground would not have been able to support a conventional brick or masonry structure." Perhaps the reason could be given in this sentence rather than the next?
    • I've replaced the colon with an emdash; does that help?
  • "to take advantage of the coal fields". In what respect?
    • I'm not sure how I can answer this without an overly simplistic answer like "to carry coal from the coalfields"; can you think of a better way of putting it?
Not a deal breaker, but perhaps 'to access the coal fields'?
I like that. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the GNR's East Midlands routes". Should there be an apostrophe in there?
    • Besides the one on "GNR's"? I don't think so.
  • "According to Graeme Bickerdike in the magazine Rail Engineer". When was Bickerdike writing?
    • Added.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog, I was hoping you might get time to review this one; must be practically on your doorstep! It's getting late but I'll have a look at these tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. How could I resist? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lovely Description section. :-)
  • "is Ilkeston town centre to the south." How far to the south?
    • Added. I walked it in a little over half an hour.
  • What is the relevance to this article of the four middle See also links?
    • It features on all those lists. Its listed status and location are discussed in the text; these are the lists of listed buildings in its location (there are four because it's listed twice, once for Nottinghamshire and once for Derbyshire).
Yes. But that is not what See also is for. (That sort oif thing is covered by categories.) A reader who clicked on any of those four would discover no new information on the subject of this article.
Actually, I'd argue that's exactly what see also is for. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline somewhere that says if a list's members are blue links, the list should be linked from the members' articles. I could be imagining that (I can't find it) but it's near-universal practice—see every single one of my war memorial FAs or my previous two bridge FAs or (I'd be willing to bet) just about every blue-linked item on any of those four lists. And List of lattice girder bridges in the United Kingdom doesn't tell the reader anything more about Bennerley Viaduct; it's just a list similar bridges in the same country. Most "see also"s on most articles won't tell you any more about the subject but rather direct you to articles on similar or related subjects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the restorations of the viaduct." Is the s a typo?
    • Fixed.
  • Why "Derby (Friargate) station" and not 'Derby (Friargate) Station'? Per the MoS - "Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements".
    • Because why would our style guides agree with each other? ;) Stations are covered by WP:NCUKSTATION and some people have really strong feeling about it!
Indeed. One day I'll ask them why their feelings should mean that they can ignore the MoS. But not today.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank a lot, Gog, I really appreciate your thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You must be near unique Harry. One issue left to fight over. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some details in the lead, such as the 'Iron Giant' moniker, don't appear to be cited in the body
  • What makes Cossons a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN32 is misformatted
  • No citations to McFetrich
  • FNs12 and and 14 are to the same source but are formatted differently. In general what is italicized and what is not seems inconsistent
  • FN15 is missing authors. Ditto FN29, check throughout
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, thanks very much for taking a look. Again! Neil Cossons is apparently a notable historian but regardless the book is by a reputable publisher so should be usable. I try to italicise works but not publishers, though some sources (like BBC News and Victorian Web) give me a headache. Everything else, I believe, I've addressed. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking if all fine here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 25 March 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) 24 March 2023 [11].

Siege of Bukhara

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was the article that started my Wikipedia journey, I suppose you could say. I created it early last year, expanded it, got it to GA, went on to other stuff, and here I am back at the beginning. Nominating it on a whim and on Gog's suggestion, as my second FA candidate (and a potential source of WikiCup points). This is an incident during the Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia, where Genghis Khan spectacularly bypassed a static defensive strategy, forced one of Asia's greatest cities to surrender in a week, burnt the place down, enslaved most of the inhabitants, delivered a surprisingly theological speech, and naffed off to do more killing, burning, and enslaving. Very Genghis. Hope you enjoy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

That's right, blame me ... grumble .... moan ... I suppose I had better look it over then. Reserving my spot. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The city of Bukhara was a major trading and cultural centre". Consider adding 'the' or 'a', as appropriate, before "cultural".
  • I'm not sure either makes sense, so I've changed to "a major centre of trade and culture". Better?
  • "A Mongol force, estimated to number between 30,000 and 50,000 men, however managed to traverse the Kyzylkum Desert, previously thought to be impassable for large armies." Suggest 'A Mongol force, estimated to number between 30,000 and 50,000 men, traversed the Kyzylkum Desert, previously thought to be impassable for large armies.'
  • Done
  • "before it was breached." Breached and stormed, or breached and they surrendered?
  • Breached and stormed.
And in the main article?
  • "The Mongol army killed everybody in the citadel". What about the rest of the garrison?
  • Either killed in the sortie or surrendered with the city.
  • "within a fairly short space of time". Delete "fairly".
  • Done.
  • "a library of 45,000 books". Just checking that they were definitely books.
  • I do mean books. The region was renowned for the quality of its paper (which rivalled Chinese standards) and for the productiveness of its bookbinders.
  • "which had originally been commissioned in 1121". Does this need "originally"?
  • Probably not.
  • "By 1215, they themselves had been subjugated by the Khwarazmians"> Delete "themselves". (Who else would they be?
  • I think I may have slipped into Latin syntax there. Oops.
  • "Outraged, Genghis left his ongoing war against the Chinese Jin dynasty, leaving only a minimal force behind, and rode westwards in 1219." Perhaps explicitly mention that he took some troops wilh him?
  • Done
  • "Estimates range from as few as 75,000 to as many as 700,000". Would that be estimates by contemporaries?
  • I think a strong case could be made for including most or all of all three Notes in the main article.
  • I don't mind, so I've done so.
  • "then descended onto Otrar and besieged it." Perhaps "onto" → 'on'?
  • Done.
  • "As the Kyzylkum was thought to be impassable by large armies". State by whom.
  • Don't know who. Timothy May: "The wily Mongol leader led his army through the Kizil Kum desert, thought to be impassable by such a large force"; May is a leading historian on the Mongol Empire, and cites a dizzying array of primary sources for this one sentence, few of which I have access to: "Juwayni/Qazvini, v1, 82–3; Juvaini/Boyle, 106–7; Juzjani/Habibi, v2, 653; Juzjani/ Raverty, 976–8. RD/Karimi, 360–2; RD/Thackston1, 246–7; RD/Thackston2, 173–4; Ibn al-Athir, 365–7; Ibn al-Athir/Richards, 207–9."
Ok. Optionally, maybe insert 'at the time' or 'by contemporaries'?
  • "the manouevre has been considered a masterstroke of warfare." State by whom.
  • Done.
  • "The Khan's march through the Kyzylkum had left his field army impotent"> This construction has the Khan's army impotent.
  • So it does. Corrected
  • "the citadel itself was taken in a fortnight". Taken how?
  • Breached by siege engines and stormed, presumably; as everyone inside was killed and the Mongols hadn't quite got into the habit of doing paperwork, there are no precise details and all the sources treat it as a formality.
Ok, but the lead now states "breached and stormed".
  • "less than two weeks"; "a fortnight". Which?
  • Twelve days, to be precise; clarified.
  • "given a speech at the Friday Mosque". Was that the actual name of the mosque?
  • No, it's a Muslim term, which I have now linked.
I thought it might be. Lower case m then?
  • "which would follow afterwards in 1220 and 1221." Delete "afterwards".
  • Done
  • "Shah Muhammad would die destitute". "would die" → 'died'.
  • Done.
  • "but was eventually crushed at the Battle of the Indus." When was this?
  • Nov '21. Added.

That was a good read. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, Gog the Mild. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stuff. A couple of comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've decapitalised mosque, added a "contemporaries", and changed "stormed" to "taken", which I feel reflects the detail (or lack of such) in the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial #

[edit]
  • For your use of quote marks, see MOS:DOUBLE.
  • Blaming that on inexperienced Airship
  • Suggest linking vassal; vassalage is not a common word, except among those who sweat on WP...
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I'm wondering if para 2 of Background could be clarified; you've got a difficult job, with so many names of tribes, people and places.
  • I believe the name-abundance is due to an earlier demand to condense a bloated section. It's definitely condensed now; whether it is clear is another thing. I would welcome any suggestions.
  • I think "common enemy" is the usual phrase, but.
  • Done
  • Not sure if "apprehensive" is quite the right word. But I know what you're getting at.
  • I think it works. Do words like worried/alarmed/concerned work better for you?
  • Does al-Nasawi have an article?
  • He does indeed.
  • You could probably lose "change in attitude to the memory of" and tighten that sentence to something like, "The chronicler al-Nasawi attributes this to an unintended earlier encounter with Mongol troops, whose speed and mobility frightened the Shah".
  • Done
  • Perhaps "Genghis left his ongoing war"
  • Done
  • "modern historians": needs citing otherwise we are weighing the historiographical consensus in Wikivoice (OR). However, "several", plus the cites you provide in n.b would resolve this.
  • Forfce/forces repetition: "army" in the second usage perhaps. Or even, "TThe Mongols..." would work.
  • Rephrased.
  • "As the Kyzylkum was thought to be impassable " [why?] and possibly [who?]
  • To the first, it's a desert; to the second, the Khwarazmians. May (cited) says "The wily Mongol leader led his army through the Kizil Kum desert, thought to be impassable by such a large force."
  • "has been considered a masterstroke" probably another [who?] I'm afraid.
  • Sources at end of sentence. I can cite by name in the body, if that's better?
(talk page stalker) I think that would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • First sentence of 'Aftermath' needs citing.
  • Done
  • " the rest of Bukhara; the Mongols set fire" I'd suggest creating two sentences at the semi-colon.
  • Done

Serial Number 54129, I've responded to most of your comments; will get to the final one shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, all is done here. I'll respond to the two below shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SN54129, this looks ready for a revisit when you're ready... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Ian: I was making good my escape from Gog's incursion from the Indus... AirshipJungleman29 has nicely wrapped this one up. Pleased, of course, to support this article's promotion. SN54129 14:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.
  • File:Genghis_Khan's_Middle_Eastern_campaigns_1216-1224.jpg is very difficult to read and interpret as presently designed
  • But the detail... File:Genghis Khan empire-en.svg might be better I suppose...

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Military history is not my specialty, so consider this a non-expert prose review.

  • "Bukhara was caught completely by surprise," Not sure about this phrasing, as I'm concerned about MOS:IDIOM or sensationalism. Maybe, "Bukhara was surprised," "Bukhara was surprised by the Mongol's attack", or something similar? Feel free to workshop or keep as-is.
  • Possibly a little sensationalist, yes, although that is the general tone of the sources. I'll tweak.
  • "The Mongol army killed everybody in the citadel and enslaved most of the population." The population of what? The city? i would clarify.
  • Done.
  • "Rossabi indicates that the total" This is the first mention of Rossabi in the article: I suggest using the full name and wikilinking to Morris Rossabi if this is him.
  • "while Smith gives an approximation of around 130,000." Same as the above, suggest using the full name in the first mention.
  • "The minimum figure of 75,000 is given by Sverdrup," same as above.
  • All done.
  • "Genghis soon arrived with his youngest son Tolui, and split the invasion force into four divisions: while Chagatai and Ogedai were to remain besieging Otrar, Jochi was to head northwest in the direction of Gurganj, and a minor detachment was sent to take Khujand, but Genghis himself took Tolui and around half of the army — between 30,000 and 50,000 men — and headed westwards." This is quite a long sentence. Maybe place a period after Gurganj, and delete the word "and" there?
  • Done
  • "the historian Peter Golden termed the relationship" The people mentioned above did not get an introduction to their credentials, but this person does. Why the discrepancy? Perhaps either everyone gets a credential mention (my recommendation) or none of them do.
  • I think I'll go for none.
  • "The chronicler Juvaini records that the" This is the second mention of Juvaini in the article: I suggest moving the credentials "The chronicler" to his first mention and wikilinking him.
  • Done
  • "believed to have been executed in 1206.[32][26]" Although not necessary, I like it when the refs are in numerical order.
  • Fair enough
  • "Ata-Malik Juvayni," Is this the same person as Juvaini? If so, why is there a difference of spelling in the article? Should it be standardised?
  • Oops. Has been now.
  • "The Mongols set fire to the city in an attempt to flush out the holdouts, but since most structures in the city were wooden the soon-uncontrollable fire reduced most of the city to cinders, including the famed library." I don't like the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The Mongols set fire to the city in an attempt to flush out the holdouts; since most structures in the city were wooden, the soon-uncontrollable fire reduced most of the city to cinders, including the famed library." This adds a semi-colon after holdouts and a comma after wooden. Thoughts?
  • Done—also removed the "but".
  • "Most of the stone structures which were left standing by the fire were razed by the Mongols," Perhaps, "Most of the stone structures left standing by the fire were razed by the Mongols," (removed "which were") or "Most of the stone structures, which were left standing by the fire, were razed by the Mongols" (added two commas)
  • " including the first Po-i-Kalyan mosque, although the Kalyan minaret was left standing." Perhaps " including the first Po-i-Kalyan mosque; the Kalyan minaret was left standing."
  • Both done.
  • "the city's craftsmen who were sent to factories and instructed to produce Mongol weaponry, and all remaining men of fighting age were conscripted into the Mongol forces." Delete the word "who"
  • Typo.
  • "eventually crushed at the" crushed might be MOS:EUPH, maybe replace with defeated?
  • Done

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you have done through these. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you for some excellent prose comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comments were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...Qarakhanids ... due to their large population and territory. Can a dynasty have a population?
  • Unsure, so altered.
  • Link Naiman to Naimans.
  • Link Otrar also in the main text.
  • Both done.
  • ..., although several modern historians consider numbers over 200,000 exaggerated. The highest estimates were made by classical Muslim historians such as Juzjani and Rashid al-Din. Consider changing the sequence of the two statements, because modern historians are listed in the following sentence.
  • Removed a sentence and reorganised.
  • Give a short explanation for "tumen".
  • Link Jebe.
  • Consider introducing Jochi, Chagatai and Ogedai as Ghengis Khan's sons, and Jebe as a Mongol general.
  • All done.
  • ...the Peter Golden... The?
  • Oops
  • ...at the Irghiz River... Already linked.
  • Redone.
  • First unnecessary.

Source review

[edit]
  • I think the sources listed under "Medieval" should give the modern citation information for the work you actually consulted. E.g. for Rashid al-Din, you consulted an edition by Thackston, but you don't give the publisher or year of publication of that edition.
  • You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location field -- for example Barthold, Blair, and Mote have no location; Emin, Man, and May have location.
  • You give an ISBN for Richard Nelson Frye, but 1965 is too early -- did you consult a reprint? If so I'd use the orig parameter to give the 1965 date.
  • For FN 40 you give the website as whc.unesco.org; that's really the domain name -- the website is "UNESCO: World Heritage Convention".
    • All done.
  • The image File:Genghis_Khan_empire-en.svg says it's been superseded; I didn't scan the two images to see what the differences are, but can you confirm that you're using the appropriate version? And can you provide a citation for the caption, as sourcing, since the image doesn't give a clear source for what it shows.
    • I don't really understand why the image was superseded, so I've changed to the newer one, and added two sources on Commons.
  • For Emin you give the title as "Muslims in the USSR Мусульмане в СССР [Muslims in the USSR]." Presumably the first part should have only the Cyrillic?
    • Too many parameters. Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck all but one above, but I noticed something else. Now that you've added modern edition dates to the medieval sources, you have citations such as "Juzjani 1873". I looked at several other FAs and there's no consistency in how citing primary sources is handled, but this seems an odd way to do it -- combining an old source with a more modern date. I don't think the FA criteria address this, so this is just a suggestion, but wouldn't it make more sense to make this "Raverty 1873"? It is Raverty's translation that you're citing, after all. To be clear, if you decide to keep it the way you have it now, that wouldn't stop me from passing the source review. However, see the related unstruck point above -- we do need consistency across all the primary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I suppose that might make sense. I don't know how the citation template would handle the parameters that way—maybe there's a way for the translator parameter to take the main place or something? Apologies, but I don't think I can figure that out right now. Otherwise, I believe all is handled.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Re your last point, I'm not sure I completely follow what the issue is, but as you now have a consistent format it doesn't matter for FAC. It might also be worth saying that if you have a format in mind you would prefer, but you can't get the citation templates to reflect it, you don't need to use the templates -- they're not required, and I know of some nominators that don't use them. (Though I can't to be honest think of a recent nomination that didn't use templates.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Prose review:

  • The link on "traversed" seems like an Easter egg.
  • previously thought to be impassable suggest "considered" rather than "thought to be"
  • The work of skilled craftsmen and artisans was appropriated by the Mongols us active voice wherever possible.
  • while others were conscripted into the armies What others and whose armies? "Work" seems to be the subject of the sentence
  • devastation was relatively mild can you have "mild devastation"? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
  • termed the relationship between the Shah and his mother as "an uneasy diarchy" lose the "as"
  • All above addressed.
  • The Shah distrusted most of his commanders, with the only exception being lose the "with", though that would arguably leave a comma splice so I'd suggest a semicolon
  • done the first part, but I don't mind a splice.
  • states that 50,000 were sent to aid Otrar, and states that there were at least 20,000 in Bukhara Two "states" in close proximity; you could just get rid of the second one.
  • Sverdrup, however, claims that there were between two and five "however" and "claims" are both words to watch and you have them right next to each other. The "however" doesn't add anything and the "claims" casts (possibly undue) doubt.
  • historians such as H. Desmond Martin and Timothy May have considered the manouevre Are these modern historians? If so, suggest saying that.
  • All done.
  • The Khan's march through the Kyzylkum I'm guessing that apostrophe should be after the s?
  • I don't believe so—there aren't multiple khans.
  • Vasily Bartold suggested that this may have been Jamukha, an old friend-turned-enemy of Genghis.[31] Most historians consider this unlikely Might be helpful to specify when these people were writing.
  • the siege would not be the city's end "would not be" → "was not"
  • the area was still unstable, with a Khwarazmian bandit chief managing to assassinate You're using "with" to join two independent clauses (which also requires changing tense mid-sentence). Suggest splitting the sentence or using a semicolon (or even a dash).
  • It would also regain → It regained. A date might be helpful here as well.
  • All done—for the last, precise dates are unknown.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell thanks for some very pertinent comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One last query: why the definite article, as in "the Khan" rather than just "Khan"? And shouldn't it be consistent? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell to put it in a western perspective, "Genghis" is the regnal name and "Khan" is the title. Compare, say, Pope Francis—you wouldn't say "Pope went to Greece" but you might say "The Pope..." or "Pope Francis..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 24 March 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) 24 March 2023 [12].

Tomb of Philippe Pot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly mournful 15th century French tomb sculpture with eight pleurants (weepers) in black hoods carrying the deceased towards his grave. Enjoy! Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

OK, I think the heavy editing has finished? If so, there are just a few little tweaks needed:

Life and death
  • "in June Charles the Bold's daughter": I think a comma after June would help (some may trip up wondering who "June Charles" is
Effigy
  • "Lying on a limestone slab, and he is dressed": "and" isn't needed
Pleurants
  • "that referring to specific": "refers"
Provenance
  • "The tomb passed though a number of owners": "through", not though

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro; have those sorted now, but am still doing a bit of regigging - noting major, a new source (Scholten) arrived in the post this morning and want to incorporate; should help address some of Borsoka's concerns below - maybe 200 odd words left to be added. Will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am done. About to collapse in a corner, but good points below. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping SchroCat if you get a chance. All issues below dealt with, far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more quite minor points on a further readthrough:

  • I'm not sure why we have "pleurants (pleurants)" in the lead? If the word is a cognate then we won't need bracket. (I may be talking absolute nonsense, so if there's a guideline that says you're doing it right, then carry on!)
  • The lead says Pot "around 49 years old, some 13 years before his death": that would make him 62 (ish). The body says he died in "1493 aged around 65". If the sources are confused on the issue, you could change the lead reference to "over a decade before his death" or "around 49 years old, before his death, when he was about 65", either of which gets rid of the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Because France does not have freedom of panorama, all pictures of 3D works in France need a tag for the original work, not just the photo. Ditto Russia
@Nikkimaria have added PD-France to each, which seems to cover it. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tomb_of_Philip_the_Bold,_08H5637_(cropped).jpg will need tagging yet. Ditto File:Philippe_Pot_Tomb_2006_(cropped).jpg, File:Semur-en-Auxois-Mise-au-tombeau-de-la-chapelle-Saint-Lazare-collégiale-dpt-Cote-d'Or-DSC_0318_(cropped).jpg, File:Dijon_(Côte-d'Or)_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Tombeaux_des_ducs_de_Bourgogne_(cénotaphe_de_Jean-sans-Peur_et_Marguerite_de_Bavière)_-_Pleurants_(14922500276).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Happy to give this a review, comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original comments from PCN02WPS

Lead and infobox

  • "Tomb" appears not to require capitalization in the bold text (referred to as "the tomb" throughout the article)
  • "two last Dukes of Burgundy:" → recommend "last two"
    • Also, I think another punctuation mark would be better here since the sentence continues after the information that the colon preceded (comma would be my choice, that seems to flow well)
  • "Battle of Nancy" is capitalized in its article, does it need caps here?
  • "The detailed inscriptions running along the sides" → could simplify with "on the sides" or "written on the sides"
  • Could link lead in the lead's 3rd paragraph
  • "recorded as completed in 1480" → "recorded as having been completed in 1480"
  • "was placed in the 19th century in a private garden in Dijon" → I'd switch the "private garden" and "19th century" bits
  • In the infobox, "size" parameter would benefit from some sort of differentiation between measurements and the next label (like a comma or line break)
  • My only other infobox comment is that "c." should use {{circa}} since it is the first occurrence per MOS:MISCSHORT

Life and death

  • "long term" → "long-term"
  • "Battle of Nancy" is only previously linked in the lead so it can be linked here
  • "in 1477" is repeated in the first paragraph, the second instance could be replaced with "in the same year"
  • does "Burgundian style" need a hyphen since it's a compound adjective?
  • Not clear who the "he" is that hired Sluter and for which tomb, is this Philip the Bold or Pot? It's clear sentence 3 is talking about Pot but sentence 2 reads ambiguously.
  • In the second paragraph, sentence 3 is essentially a repeat of sentence 1
  • "in a style that reaches back" → this is worded a little oddly, perhaps "dates back"?
  • "The tomb is first recorded" → present tense sounds odd here
  • "given the inscriptions" → "given that the inscriptions" or "since [or because] the inscriptions"
  • To avoid duplicating too much information among paragraphs, I would remove "at the battle of Nancy" (since this is mentioned in para 1)
  • "It was placed in the chapel..." → comma is unneeded in this sentence since "at the corner of the south arm of the transept" isn't a complete sentence on its own
  • I suppose it's not 100% needed but is there a translation of the motto?
  • Does "his chapel" refer to Saint-Jean-Baptiste? If so the article does not mention that the chapel was his prior to this

Attribution

  • Philippe' → remove apostrophe
  • First sentence is missing some words and punctuation, and duplicates the "Battle of Nancy" information from the first section
  • "It is probable that" → What "it" refers to is unclear
  • "to agree an overall design" → missing word
  • Give Moiturier's full name and link him since he's not mentioned previously in the body
  • "between distinguish" → words are in the wrong order
  • When discussing Marcoux, present tense is used with "notes" but past tense is used with "believed"
  • "that it they were likely" → sounds like "it" isn't needed here

More comments to come shortly, just saving my progress. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "ie can be seen from all sides" → "i.e." needs periods per MOS:LATINABBR
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is a little on the long side - a good place to break it up would be after "iconography", and replacing the dash with a comma would work well
  • "The eight mourners on average" → I think starting the sentence with "on average" flows better here
  • "that is slightly less than life-sized." → "that is" can be taken out
  • "that mostly covering their faces" → missing word
  • Dagobert's death date is given in the "Life and death" section so I don't think it's needed here
  • Last bit of the first paragraph doesn't appear cited; if it uses ref 24, that can be repeated
  • "individually designed" → hyphen here for compound adjective
  • I'm not convinced that the numbers to label the mourners are necessary; the representation of the shields can just be listed on their own, though commas do need to be added (if the numbers are kept, mourner #5 is listed as being both on the left and on the right)
  • "Their weighty and austere poses gives" → "poses gives" do not agree
  • "individualised facial characteristics" → "facial" here is redundant because that part of the sentence is talking about their faces
  • Mention of their different heraldic shields is not needed since the prior paragraph is about that
  • Picture caption beginning "Left-hand view" is a little hard to understand, rewording it so it doesn't rely on parentheses would be better

Provenance

  • Could a job title or description for Louis Boudan be added so the reader knows his significance?
  • "French State" is capitalized at the end of para 1 but "state" is lowercase in paragraphs 2 and 4
  • The external link labeled "33 rue Berbisey" can be converted to a wikilink by linking to the file like this: [[c:File:Hôtel de Ruffey.jpg|33 rue Berbisey]]
  • "The Vesvrotte's" → this plural doesn't need an apostrophe
  • The photo caption for Au Solei does not include the accent on the "E" in "Édouard"
  • "In August that year" → "In August of that year"

Condition and restorations

  • "has been cleaned...in the 19th century" → tense doesn't match
  • "Some the letters and words" → missing word
  • "C2RMF" abbreviation isn't necessary since it's not used again in the article
  • "and the bare stone was cleaned, and additions" → repetition of "and"

Imitations and replicas

  • "The monuments's innovations" → is "monuments" here talking just about Pot's tomb?
  • "depicted" seems appropriate for the 19th century painting (assuming it was a painting of the tomb) but it seems like the wrong word for the sculpture since it's more of a parody or homage

That should do it for my comments for now - I will go back for another readthrough and look at references soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All points addressed now.[14] Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass-through

Lead

  • "room 210" information doesn't appear in the body

Life and death

  • "Philip the Good (reigned 1419 -1467) and Charles the Bold (reigned 1467 - 1477)" → need unspaced en-dashes for both date ranges (MOS:RANGE)
  • "During this period, he rose to become a knight of the Golden Fleece and lord of the La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche communes" → I'm not sure that there's something grammatically incorrect about this sentence but rewording to avoid repetition of "and" would be good (maybe ...and lord of the communes of... and ..."?)
  • "and Charles' cousin" → plural is "Charles's" in the start of the next paragraph, should be consistent and I believe the "apostrophe-s" is correct here (that is, "Charles's")
  • Is there a reason that Isabella's birth year is needed here, since we're not talking about her birth and her page is linked? Same question to Maximilian of Austria in para 3
  • "King of France" → since "lord" is lowercase in para 1, should "king" be lowercase here?
  • "Because of this, and on charges of perjury, Charles's and Isabella's daughter and heiress, Mary of Burgundy (b. 1457), expelled him in June 1477 from both the court at Lille and her realm." → sentence seems misordered and rather clunky, especially the first bit; my recommended rewording would be as follows:
"Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles and Isabella, expelled him from her realm and the court at Lille in June 1477 on perjury charges and because of his change of allegiance."
If you want to keep "heiress" in there, I'd specify what she was heir to; same birth year question applies here as above; and did the perjury charges come about because of the change of allegiance? If so that repetition can be avoided.
  • "the King's death" → I think "king" should be lowercase here too

Commission

  • "mourners (pleurants) began" → "pleurants" is not italicized in the lead; I'm not sure which is correct but I would be consistent
  • "built by the sculptors Jean de Marville and Claus Sluter from 1381" → "in 1381"?
  • This may just be a reading comprehension problem on my part, but I am getting a little confused by the timeline. The infobox states that its creation began in 1477, but the body says it was first mentioned in historical record in 1480, the lead says the record mentions its completion in 1480, but the body says it may have been as late as 1483.
  • "Pot commissioned his tomb some 14 years before his death" → the lead says "some 13 years before his death"
  • "prosperity, and explain his change in allegiance to Louis XI" → don't believe this comma is necessary

Description

  • "mourners, are painted in a relatively limited palette" → comma unneeded
  • "they have different poses" → "they" is ambiguous as to whether you're talking about the mourners or their faces

Provenance

  • "The antiquarian and collector François Roger de Gaignières made a number of drawings" → specify that these are drawings of the tomb (I assume)
  • "It is next mentioned" → present tense; switches to past tense later in the sentence
  • "Lord of Ruffey-lès-Beaune" → lowercase "lord" as above

Condition and restorations

  • "shows Pot's fingers as badly damaged" → I would either remove "as" or change to "as being badly damaged"

Reference formatting

  • Ref 46, ""Début de la restauration du tombeau de Philippe Pot", needs "language=" parameter

After a second read-through, this is what I found. Grammar and prose itself is much better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thanks, all points now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments; one above and one in the "Commission" section: "The motif of its pleurants" → does "its" refer to Pot's tomb or that of Charles the Bold? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PCN02WPS I believe I may have fiddled with the sentence in the commission section; "its" refers to the antecedent Philip the Bold's tomb, i.e its pleurants. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the comma myself, so I'm happy enough to give this one a support. Immense improvement over the FAC review process. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Just checking, the "Tomb" is not actually a tomb, but a funerary monument?
    The sources treat them as the same thing. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knight of the Golden Fleece". Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly in the main article.
  • "Dukes of Burgundy". Ditto for D.
  • "Battle of Nancy". And B.
  • "he served under both Louis XI and Charles VIII". And Charles VIII would be? Perhaps 'and his son ...'?
  • "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in eastern France, as a godson of Philip the Bold." No, he wasn't born as Philip's godson. And Philip needs introducing.
  • "He served under the two last Dukes of Burgundy" → ' He served under the last two Dukes of Burgundy'.
  • "in eastern France". So it wasn't in Burgundy?
  • "his long-term enemy Louis XI". Introduce Louis.
  • "The tomb follows the style of". Which/whose tomb?
  • "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs ... Philip the Bold's, which was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the now well-known Burgundian tombs".
  • "Philippe Pot's monument was the last major tomb of the Burgundians". Do you mean that Pot was the last Burgundian to have a tomb? Or that his was the last in the Burgundian style? Or something else?
  • "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs."; "was designed in a style that dates back to the tomb of Philippe Dagobert (d. 1235)." There seems to be a contradiction there.
  • "The tomb was first recorded on 28 August 1480". But you go on to say that it may not have been constructed by then. How can it be first recorded if it didn't yet exist?
  • Caption: "Donor portrait of Philip Pot, unknown artist, Church of Notre-Dame of Dijon". Should that be Philippe?
  • Why is he referred to as Philippe rather than Pot?
  • "the chapel of Saint-Jean-Baptiste"; "Philippe's motto "Tant L. vaut, était" was painted in several locations within his chapel." The second statement implies that it was Philippe's chapel, rather than Saint-Jean-Baptiste's.
  • "but erroneously gives the year of death 1494 (rather than 1493)". Suggest 'but erroneously gives the year of death as 1494, rather than 1493'.
  • "Moiturier (active 1482–1502) is often suggested as". Do you mean Antoine Le Moiturier. If so, give his name in full and link it. And are you quite sure that he was active after 1495?
  • "the similarity of their facial types". What is a "facial type"?
  • "the variation of degree in the quality of sculpture". What?
  • "parts of the sculpture are so vaguely described". Described by whom and in what document(s)?
  • "a symbol of fidelity in most Burgundian tombs." "most" - so what does it symbolise in the remainder?
  • "Unusually the effigy does not contain any of the angels usually seen". You don't need both "Unusually" and "usually seen".
  • "contemporary Northern European tombs". Why the upper-case N?
  • "The eight mourners on average measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.
  • "They are carved in black stone". Is anything further known about the nature of this material?
  • "playing a ceremonial rite". One does not play a rite. Perhaps 'participating in'?
  • "that lasted in the region". that took place, or that is recoded in, or similar.
  • "do not often appear in contemporary sculpture or painting, they appear in well known works". Is it possible to avoid "appear" twice in eight words?
  • "Kinship tomb". Why the upper-case K?
  • "mourners 1–5 and his right mourners 5–8." So mourner 5 appears twice?
  • "Their weighty and austere poses". "weighty"! What does the source say?
  • Is the article written in UK or US English?
  • "Other potential sources include". Do you mean 'influences'?
  • "on a short side of the tomb". What is a short side of a tomb?
    By the head and by the feet. A very common term when describing objects. Ceoil (talk)
  • "The tomb's passed though" → 'The tomb passed though'.
  • "The tomb was nationalised during the French Revolution". Could a date be given? If necessary a rough one.
  • "count Richard de Vesvrotte". Upper-case C.
  • "He placed it in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey, under trees at his townhouse". So it was both in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey and under trees at Vesvrotte's townhouse?
    Rephrased as "He placed it under trees in the garden of his hôtel particulier (townhouse), the Hôtel de Ruffey at 33 rue Berbisey in Dijon." Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tomb has been cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century" → 'The tomb was cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century'.
Break
[edit]

There are a startling number of basic grammar issues in this article, to the extent that I do not believe it is ready for FAC. It would certainly have benefitted from a longer stay at PR than the 15 days it received. A trip to to GoCE would probably also have been helpful. @SchroCat and PCN02WPS: I would be interested in your opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I am on the newer side to FAC but I would tend to agree with you - most of my comments were about grammatical or prose issues, and we found a lot of the same errors (mourner 5 listed twice, "his" chapel, etc). Some of the other stuff I found (transposed or missing words, misspellings, etc) indicates that a little more time copyediting or proofreading would be beneficial. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to note most of the issues were resolved this afternoon. The maimed will be done in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Love the Freudian typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The irony (and double meaning) re spelling on an FAC I'M being called out for spelling is not lost on me. Anyway, I do appreciate all the effort and help you and PCN02WPS have given, and take you point re PR/GOCE. All up to date except re the point on the Philip the Bold stuff, which will address in morning evening, afterwhich can do a full proof read, and then ping for a revsit from ye both. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re irony: Indeed, God will know her own. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I'm butting in and will probably embarrass Ceoil. This is the first FAC I've read in a year, perhaps two - can't honestly remember. The long list of nitpicks isn't really how FAC should work or used to work, and doesn't actually set a great example coming from a coord. All that said, given the that the spelling issue has been a known issue for well over a decade the thing to do is help, not hinder. I'm willing to assist. I can attempt to address what you refer to as "basic grammar issues". There are a few walls of text above, so if you and PCN02WPS could please strike what you consider resolved, and please highlight what still needs to be done in that area. Ceoil can address any substantive comments that are posted. Does that work for you all? Pinging Ceoil, Gog the Mild and PCN02WPS. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. That is not how FAC works, dumping responsibility for high lighting details of issues back on the reviewers. If Ceoil, and any other editors they would care to have assist them, could iron out the issues above and any other similar ones, then let me know, I will relook at the article and make any fresh comments which then seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 20:06, February 18, 2023 (UTC)
So reviewers no longer strike comments? Anyway, you've been quite clear as to your position. Thanks. Unwatching now. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, just to reiterate, again, the lists above were mostly focused on very trivial items (a lot of preferences re caps, commas etc), and were fixed with in minutes. I diont want perception to be that the article was flawed, and maybe a withdrawal, as Gog suggested, or at least a refresh, is best at this time. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. No they're not. 2. I cannot see where I have suggested withdrawal.
[1] Actually yes they are with two exceptions re Philip the Good as pointed out!! Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I read this FAC this morning that was exactly the perception I had. But when working through the article last night found only a few minor mistakes that were quickly resolved. If copyediting is what's wanted you've done a lot and I've done some and frankly were I reviewing I'd support. If they still want more I'm happy to address the trivial issues only because I think the tone is a bit snarky and I'm disappointed to see that from a coord who sets an example. If you're good to carry on, I'll happily rescind the offer and happily step back away from Wikipedia. It should be fun, which it is when stuck in a small corner, but there are definitely some unwelcome edges that I'm happy to avoid. Victoria (tk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my pov, the review has been *most* beneficial, I just dont want to be tarred with a SNOW quick fail.[15][16] Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I am pleased if it has helped; that, obviously I hope, was my intention. Ping me when you're ready for me to have another look. As an experienced nominator you will be aware that a (unrecused) coordinator will only even consider archiving a nomination if there is a formal oppose coupled with a recommendation of withdrawal, so crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the Philip the Good stuff, took long as had to gather hardcovers. To note Vic did a top to bottom ce today, which I think solved a lot, incl the brit vs us spelling thing, highlighted above (something I dont have a clue about except adding a "u" is always good. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog, I'm cracking on - your specific points have been met, but some expansion, relating to your points, are coming from Borsoka's review below - will ping when ready for your further points / ay or nay. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As update, am not ignoring, have addressed major points (yours and others), going to give it a day or too before asking you to pull the trigger, which will hopefully be a "go" shot in the air rather than a bullet through my head )!! Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I can't have a two-fer? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you run for RFA. Then you can do what the hell you want. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely - I have a fear of responsibility. Mah wa ha ha ha ... Gog the Mild (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough now for you to look over again. Am somewhat embarrassed by the earlier spelling/MOS stuff, and take the point re a longer PR, but would appreciate a 2nd view from you. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PCN02WPS - What are your thoughts on the status of the article as it now stands? Both you and Gog brought up significant concerns with prose, although later reviewers appear to view the problem as having been abated. I'm trying to gauge what the consensus of the prose concerns here are. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I am going to take another look through now - thank you for the ping. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Break II
[edit]

I have done a little copy editing. If any of it causes concern, could you flag it up here.

  • "Philippe served under the politically fraught years ..." This doesn't work, grammatically.
  • "at the battle of Nancy he had waged against". One cannot wage a battle. Perhaps 'fought'?
  • "Pot commissioned the tomb when he was around 49 years old, some 13 years before his death in 1493." and "Pot died in ... 1493 aged around 49 years, having already made detailed plans for his burial place, funeral monument and epitaph."
  • "Pot's monument was the last of the Burgundian tombs". Do you mean that Pot was the last Burgundian to have a tomb? Or that his was the last in the Burgundian style? Or something else?
  • "Pot's monument was the last of the Burgundian tombs". What were the defining features of a "Burgundian tomb"?
  • "On average they measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.
  • If the first Burgundian tomb was built in 1381 and the last in 1480 the the style of its pleurants cannot have developed over "centuries". This may or may not become moot depending on your response to the comment immediately above.
  • "Pot's effigy is moulded in the round". Is it known what it is made of?
  • "Le Moiturier is often suggested as". Goive his full name and link it at first mention in the main article.
  • "a filing eventually rejected". I think this would read better if "filing" → 'claim'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)#[reply]

Ceoil, I am somewhat confused by your posts and deletions. However, it seems clear that you have lost faith in me as a reviewer. So I shall take you at your word - "I cant be bothered to engage with anymore" - and step away. This is my 375th FAC review and I believe that I have carried them all out to the same standard and using a consistent and widely accepted interpretation of the FAC criteria. The large number of MoS non-compliances I picked up in my first run through were not "very trivial" and of the 11 comments I make above, 10 are IMO where the article fails to meet one of the criterion (the last is indeed "based [on my] preferences", which is why it is phrased "I think this would read better if"), not "nitpicking to an excessive digree" nor "trivial" issues.
To delve into my comment which caused profanity, in my first run through I commented ' "The eight mourners on average measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.' To which you responded "Done." In fact you had changed the article to "On average they measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)", which clearly failed to address my point. Ah well, we all have our moments, I certainly do; so, AGFing, I reraised the issue, as neutrally as I could. Which drew a "FFS". When I first read this I honestly thought that you were chastising yourself, but no - apparently it is aimed at me for having the temerity to check whether the issue was actually "done".
In spite of your invitation - "Its fine to oppose" - I am instead going to just leave the comments open for the closing coordinator to make of what they will, just noting that despite 207 edits since it was nominated, the article is still a work in progress. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

  • You review came off as off-hand, dismissive, mocking, high handed (now you say "is my 375th FAC review", FFS). My style is to fix obv stuff before I post a review, not use as a tool for humiliation.
  • I deleted the post within minutes, well done in resurrecting, nice power move. Wouldn't stand even on AN/I.
  • The nom is 19 days old with two supports. Many of yours and PCN02WPS grammer issues were duplicates.
  • It tend to save a lot (epc when moving images), so edit count is not an indicator of substantial changes to the integrity of the page.
  • The "average" thing was a genuine mistake...I had resolved the first instance, in the infobox.
  • I do (once again) take your point re a longer PR would have been wise. At this point you are haunting my dreams - see 2nd word, gulp!!!
  • For the record, your new points are met. But I do think characterising as a work in progress is unfair. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few other things:

  • I regret the deleted comments. They were unfair. A combinational of mental deficiency and an unwillingness of primary educators in late 1970s ILR to even pretend that EnglisH grammer exists, ie its all the Irish governments fault...and I "may" have been a bit defensive, and so....
  • ....in future I'll beforehand put through FAC noms though GOCE and (extended) PR, and maybe GAN, there by reducing the burnded on reviewers and coors Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off-handed" as complained above could also be interpreted as "sharp and witty".
  • Your review has been most beneficial wrt the article's quality. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in Burgundy and was a godson of Philip the Bold. Consider mentioning the Duchy of Burgundy instead of Burgundy (because Burgundy is ambiguous). Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Consider referring to him as "Duke Philip the Good" to introduce him. You could also link the Duchy of Burgundy.
  • Delink "Burgundian court" since the court is not identical with the duchy.
  • Why "seigneur" instead of lord, why "a seigneur" instead of "the seigneur", and why "La Roche" instead of "La Rochepot"? You may also want to mention that his possessions were located in Burgundy.
    • The use of the term "commune" and the reference to Cote-d'Or is anachronistic in context.
      Word "commune" is removed. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also removed the reference to Cote-d'Or as it did not exist when Pot died. The term "Burgundian province of Cote-d'Or" was absolutely misleading.
  • Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Philip the Good and Charles the Bold were not the last dukes of Burgundy although they were the last dukes of Burgundy who actually ruled the Duchy of Burgundy (I refer to Philip the Fair, and Louis, Duke of Burgundy who both held the title of Duke of Burgundy). Perhaps you could introduce Charles the Bold as Philip the Good's son and successor. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles the Bold was not defeated by Louis XI in the Battle of Nancy.
  • The dynasty did not die out with the dead of Charles the Bold as he was succeeded by his daughter Mary of Burgundy in most of his realms.
    • The Battle of Nancy did not weaken the Valois dynasty as the Valois Louis XI of France could claim Burgundy as a consequence of Charles the Bold's death in the battle.
  • Perhaps you want to mention that after Charles the Bold's death Louis XI claimed the duchy against Mary and occupied it to add a context for Pot's "involvement with Louis". You could also mention that Mary otherwise retained much of her inheritence to give a context. I assume Pot's "involvement with Louis" was related to the fact that his patrinomy was located in the Duchy of Burgundy, occupied by the French soon after Mary's ascension.
    My bio sources are only art historical...haven't found anything in English covering his change of allegiance. However Jugie 2019 mentions that after Nancy, La Rochepot came under French control, but unfortunately doesn't make explicit that he may have had no choice. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Pot was expelled not only from the court but from Mary's realms as well.
  • I assume Louise is Louis.
  • Maximilian was also Mary's co-ruler, which is relevant in the context of the sentence referring to his negotiations.
  • That August?
  • Alternatively you may want to summarize Pot's life without mentioning much of the history of Burgundy.
  • The truce was signed on 8th September, and from its success Pot eventually served under Louis's son Charles VIII. I do not understand "from its success" in the context. Furthermore, Charles VIII was king from 1483 (not from 1477).
  • Consider mentionning when Pot died to complete his short biography, perhaps also mentioning the cause of his death.
    Had added the sentence: "Pot died in Dijon on 20 September 1493 aged around 65..." However, have been unable to find a cause of death. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Burgundian-style tombs began with the late 14th century tomb of Philip the Bold, designed by the sculptor Claus Sluter. It's distinctive mourners were often copied over the following centuries.[6][7] Pot's monument was the last of the important Burgundian tombs. Consider changing the sequence of the three sentences, because the reference to Burgundian-style tombs came without any introduction. Consider moving the three sentences to the following section (section "Attribution").
  • Consider also moving the last paragraph of the section "Life and death of Philip Plot" to section "Attribution" because the first sentence of the latter section seems to repeat previously mentioned information.
  • Pot paid the abbot of Cîteaux Abbey, Jean de Cirey, one thousand livres for a burial place... Where?
  • Use the "lang" template when mentioning Pot's motto and consider translating it. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, this is an excellent content review. Most points addressed [17], and will let you know when fully complete, but it may be the weekend - want to do more on the bio (weaving Mary and Maximilian in more) and evolution of the style of the Burgundian tombs. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revisit pls - have fleshed out the life and death section, although mainly indirectly via art historical sources on Isabella's and Mary's tombs. I'm not finding much direct bio info. The Philip the Bold stuff should be clear enough now but willing to listen to complaints. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pot was raised and educated at the Burgundian court and is known to have been a scholar and bibliophile. As an adult, he served... Was he a scholar before reaching adolthood?
    Dunno. Its not a bio, but the (art historical) sources indicate he was highly educated, accomplished warrior, diplomat and warrior. Those openions are the best we have in english, far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two sentences are disturbing for they suggest together that he was a scholar and bibliophile before reaching adulthood. I think they should be rephrased. Perhaps: "Pot was raised and educated at the Burgundian court. He was a scholar and bibliophile, and held important offices during the politically fraught years..."
  • I think the fact that Mary of Burgundy inherited her father's realms in the Low Countries should be mentioned because for the time being we are informed that Burgundy was lost to the French.
    I believe this is already implied, and anyway this is not bio or broad sweep hist article. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a link to Burgundian Netherlands.
  • ...it is generally assumed to have been between 1480 and 1483 given that the inscriptions mention events after the January 1477 death of Charles the Bold... Why not between 1477 and 1483?
  • They range in height from 134 cm (53 in) to 144 cm (57 in), slightly less than life-sized... Slightly?
    I'm fine with this. The avg height was slightly shorter back then. How else could it be couched? Ceoil (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...described by the publishing house Ediciones El Viso as "masterful...in its technical audacity". Can we refer to a publishing house as a source? I assume the publishing house borrowed this statement from Sophie Jugie's book.
Done Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... a ceremonial rite... What kind of ceremonial rite? Perhaps burial rite?
    Yes, burial rite, good spot, although hardly fatal given the narrow scope of this page. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...mourners ... can be found on the tomb of Philippe Dagobert (d. 1235)... We were previously informed that mourners are the characteristic elements of Burgundian-style tombs, and Philip the Bold's tomb built in the late 14th century is the first example of the style. Now, we are informed that a tomb with mourniers had been built already in the early 13th century.
    Removed claim.[18] Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Guillaume Chandelier?
    Frankly somebody mentioned in a RS. i;m not finding any info online either. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the reference to him could be deleted as per WP:DUE.
      • He appears in at least three sources, it "seems" the theory was only debunked in last 20 years, but not sure. Have added "a painter active in Dijon at the time". Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have to know in the article's context that Count Richard de Vesvrotte was lord of Ruffey-lès-Beaune? Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking re "in the article's context"? Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed. Some people complain about too little context some about too much eg [19]; this review has been a sea-saw : Ceoil (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two of my comments have not been addressed. I think my comment about Philippe Dagobert's tomb is still to be addressed because two sentences seem to contradict each other in the article. I assume that Burgundian-style tombs may have had other features than the mourniers. As soon as this issue is clarified I am ready to support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Added "...the Burgundian-style tombs, whose characteristics include the deceased having naturalised faces, open eyes and angels above their heads.[10] However the portrayal of the mourners (pleurants) is their defining motif. The style began with the tomb of Philip the Bold (d. 1404)..." Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, mentioned above that the Philippe Dagobert claim is removed. Its an involved point, out of scope here. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my major concerns were addressed. I am happy to support the article's promotion. Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very solid and rewarding content review. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A lovely article. Just a few comments, mostly proofreading:

  • Life and death of Philippe Pot
  • "signed on 8th September" – the MoS bids us write "8 September" and not "8th September".
  • "Louis's son Charles VIII" – after a silent s as in "Louis", the customary possessive form is a plain apostrophe rather than s-apostrophe-s.
  • Commission and attribution
  • "customary for a secular burial" – I'm unsure what a secular burial is: if it means the burial of a member of the laity rather than of a cleric it might be clearer to say so.
  • Effigy
  • "Pot's effigy is molded" – as the article is in BrE (armour, emphasise, nationalised) it would be as well to use the BrE "moulded".
  • Pleurants
  • "a panted and gilded heraldic shield that referring to specific members" – two things here: "panted" should be "painted", presumably; and the "that" is not wanted.
  • "the de Montagus' and de Nesli's" – for the plain plurals of names, possessive apostrophes are not wanted.
  • Inscriptions
  • "l’an mil"" – curly inverted comma should be straight (MoS). This is the only one I spotted, but it might be as well to check for any others.
  • Provenance
  • "the French state too ownership" – "took" rather than "too".
  • "was employed to relocated it" – "to relocate" and not "to relocated".

That's all from me. This article makes me long to see the tomb, and I shall make of point of doing so when next in Paris. Tim riley talk 10:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - thanks for these. Think I have them all now. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Happy to support promotion to FA. Clear, readable, evidently balanced and neutral, well referenced and beautifully illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Support. I still have a couple of pedanticisms, but I think it meets FA standards. Interesting read, it has given me some ideas for my own idealised funerary monument. I have made a few tweaks, I hope you like them, if not, well this is a wiki.

If he was born in 1428 and died in 1493 he would have been about 65 years old not 49. The lede has him commissioning the monument when he was 49 and then living for another 13 years, this adds up to 62 which is a lot closer to a 1428 birth and a 1493 death, but still looks anomalous. Later it says "His year of death is erroneously recorded as "l'an mil ccccxci[v]" (in the year 1493)" which contradicts the 1493 death, though MCCCCXCIV is actually 1494, which would indeed be erroneous if he died in 1493. So I've changed that to "in the year 1494"

I see you have this already fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede and the main text still contradict. Was he 49 when he commissioned the monument or over a decade later when he died? I've changed this to 65 when he died. Does that work for you? ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Now reads throughout born 1428 (aged 0), tomb 1480 (aged 52), died 1493 (aged 65). Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in the Duchy of Burgundy. He was a godson of Philip the Good and was raised and educated at the Burgundian court. Philippe served under the politically fraught years of the last two Valois Dukes of Burgundy, Philip the Good (b. 1396) and Charles the Bold (b. 1433). During this period, he rose to become a knight of the Golden Fleece and lord of the La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche communes in Côte-d'Or, north-eastern France" Beaune was then in the Duchy of Burgundy and is now in France, La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche are indeed now in France but whether they were then in France or Burgundy is probably relevant to this article. There are a couple of ways to describe these sort of historic changes in an article, but consistency is key, and I don't think we want the reader to think that in this era Beaune was in Burgundy but La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche were in France.

Yes, good point. I think I'll go with xxx loc (in today's France). Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified that Côte-d'Or was then a province of Burgundy. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The coats of arms on his shield and on those of the mourners, are painted in gold, red and black, and represent the insignia of his ancestral families" Are they just paint, in which case it would be interesting to know how the various restorers came to the current choices of colour and shapes, or are the designs carved onto the stone as one photograph seems to show? In either case, three colours is a very limited palette to cover 8 heraldic shields, has anyone commented on that and is this part of the reason why two designs are now unidentified? ϢereSpielChequers 08:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, but the sources I have don't expressly mention that the pallet was particular limited, though from looking at this (pre-restoration) pic, it clearly was. Presumably because, like flags, the colours in heraldic shields are symbolic, and tend to be in three's and we are taking about a dynasty here. All the other paint is black (assuming the faces are exposed limestone). The restoration notes don't comment specifically, although I only have the exhibition catalogue, presumably there is a dry technical paper out there, no doubt only in French. Also; tonally you wouldn't expect a funerary monument to be bursting with a rainbow of colours, especially as the sculpture is so heavy and austere. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "know how the various restorers came to the current choices of colour and shapes"...the paint was damaged and faded but largely still intact. Also..only the shields are coulourised so they had obvious reference points. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [20]. I cant go into further speculation, alas. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't go beyond the sources, but if these are the various families he is descended from, (the eight families of his great grandparents?) then I would expect pretty much every common heraldic colour. However I can see that an artistic choice may at some point have been taken, possibly in a restoration as by then this has become an art object rather than a personal statement. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the Jstor sites you used, But I have read the Louvre description and looked at the photos in it. There are clearly more than three colours used on the Mourners shields, and the design isn't just painted on, the photos show scallops and other designs clearly carved on the shields. ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what material the face is moulded from. Are you sure it wasn't carved from the same limestone as the slab? ϢereSpielChequers 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Pot is buried underneath his monument, located to the left of the altar." I think is buried should be was buried, as my reading of the article and the Louvre write up is that when the funerary monument was moved the body remained buried below the floor of the Abbey. Unless I misunderstand, his monument is no longer in the abbey but his tomb still is.... ϢereSpielChequers 00:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will go back over the sources in a day or so. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, have changed to "is buried". Both the effigy and crest patterns are from limestone. Re colours, have added

Just to clarify; the monument = "tomb" (per sources above ground), which has moved, but his "grave" (below ground) is still in situ. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion here is that we have a funerary monument that is called a tomb but has become separated from the part of the tomb that contains the body. I think the lede gets this right, and would suggest referring to it as a monument rather than a tomb whenever we are referring to just the monument. I.E. He commissioned the tomb in 1480 but from the late nineteenth century the monument has moved several times. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers can you revisit pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"are not common in contemporary sculpture or painting" perhaps were if we are talking about contemporary with him as opposed to contemporary as in our era?
Re "hoods that mostly cover their faces" - "Although their faces are covered and thus do not have individualised features" - "likely to have designed the pleurants, given the similarity of their faces and the solid and rigid rendering of their clothing to the Mourners of Dijon which are often attributed to". Either these faces are mostly or fully covered, or presumably only observable up close. ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it’s mostly…you can see a few chins, jaw lines. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both points addressed. Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the monument is carved from 9 separate pieces of limestone, it would be much more fragile and difficult to transport otherwise. Is this documented in any of your sources? If so it would be worth mentioning.As would any detail re assembly and disassembly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the constructive feedback, especially on the range of colours used. I'll be light editing only for the next while, but can dig more into the structure when properly back. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]

Support Has been pretty well chewed-over, & I don't have anything to add. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

[edit]

Support as per Johnbod. Made some edits and may have made some mistakes to the text in the process - am happy to fix or be reverted.

  • One point: it might make sense to explain to the lay audience that the pleurants in the other Burgundian tombs were quite small, placed in niches, detached, removable. The file, File:Dijon Philippe le Hardi Tombeau6 (cropped) (cropped).jpg shows pleurants from another tomb but it's hard to tell that they're tiny. I'm not suggesting the image be removed; rather that the text explains that the earlier preceding tombs w/ pleurants weren't as gigantic as Pot's, and that the tombs preceding the Burgundian's i.e Dagobert had relief carving not removable or almost walking pleurants (personally I'd get rid of Dagobert altogether b/c it's just too confusting). Panofsky's Tomb sculpture] gives a good two or three sentence summary overview that might be helpful.
    Yes & a very astute observation. The difference here vs earlier tombs is that the weight of the slab and effigy is -physically and structurally- carried by the very narrow shoulders of the 8 mourners, where as before the were, as you say, tindependent and free standing. Thinking about how to convey. will add. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Try Moffitt pp. 75-76. Page 75 explains Sluter's niche weepers, which can go to the section re Philip the Bold. Page 76, see the long quote (bottom of first column onto the next column) which explains that the procession itself became fundamental to the ritual for the Burgundians. I think you can slip that in, before the description of carrying the slab on the shoulders. If that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, thanks. Give me 24 hours to properly address (out with bothers and sister :)). Txs v much. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, and changed the image so gives better of their size relative to the tomb. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: in the sources, Panofsky or Panofski? Or both? (Looks like it's two authors).

That's all. It's an absolutely astounding monument for a person who was essentially no more than a top level gov't official. Nice job. Victoria (tk) 15:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't sourced anywhere, eg the dimensions
  • Why a location in FN6 when other inline refs have none?
  • Be consistent in whether dates are placed before (FN53) or after (FN51) publishers
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Mikolic date differs between References and Sources
  • Be consistent in how short citations to multi-author works are formatted
  • No citations to Antoine 2005, de Winter 1987, Wright 1974
  • Is Panofsky Irvin or Ervin?
  • Locations are also inconsistently present and inconsistently formatted in Sources
  • Jugie 2010 is missing publisher. Generally speaking citation formatting needs cleaning up
  • How does Marcoux meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, all done except I'm comfortable with Marcoux; its a phd thesis with the Université de Montréal, and the claims relied on are largely descriptive or matters of historical fact. As a phd is obvs reviewed, and there are extensive footnotes. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking on this with you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've now got one Erwin and one Ervin Panofsky. Otherwise fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 24 March 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2023 [21].

Badge Man

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the myriad figures spotted in Dealey Plaza during the assassination of John F. Kennedy —the Babushka Lady, the black dog man, the three tramps, and the umbrella man (we almost had Captain Kirk and Spock as well)—the Badge Man may be the least bizarre. With the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination coming later this year, this could be the first of a small series of relevant articles. Cheers, ~ HAL333 20:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "with the Badge Man often firing the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll" - if he did exist and fire a fatal shot, he only did it once, so maybe "with the Badge Man often said to have fired the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll" would be better.....?
  • "which feature's White's work" - first comma should not be there
  • "Bugliosi also emphasized that Mack has stated the he" => "Bugliosi also emphasized that Mack has stated that he"
  • That's all I got :-) Thanks for an interesting read. As a Brit I didn't know about any of this (although I obviously knew that there are conspiracy theories about the assassination, I didn't know anything about all the various mystery people in the area.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Yeah, the Kennedy assassination is absolutely tantalizing. ~ HAL333 22:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review... As it happens I saw The Men Who Killed Kennedy on its Australian premiere, so quite familiar with this "character". I look forward to going over this in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyedited so let me know if you feel I've misunderstood or -- as would be entirely appropriate in the JFK assassination area -- misrepresented anything.
  • Not really anything else to add re. prose aside from the tweak SC proposes below with which I've added my concurrence.
  • Seems appropriate detail for this alleged individual; despite its brevity I don't think it neglects any major facts but you could perhaps slightly expand on one point: In 1988, White also claimed that a person wearing a white shirt is visible behind the Badge Man -- in The Men Who Killed Kennedy our investigators posited a fellow wearing a hardhat behind/beside Badge Man; since you mention Arnold, also discussed in that show and also somewhat peripheral to the Badge Man claim, perhaps you could add a tiny bit on "Hardhat Man" or whatever they call him...

Nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded on the "Back Up Man" a bit. ~ HAL333 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that as the article has been stable for a while now I'm pretty well ready to support but will hold off till after the source review (I could do it but as I've done a fair bit of research into the assassination myself and have my opinions I'd prefer to see someone else take it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given the only outstanding ref points seem to be of a formatting nature. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg: the text says this was seen "in world media" - where was it first published? Was the copyright held by UPI or retained by Moorman?
  • File:Badgeman.jpg: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Badgeman_coloured.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all missing alt text. Regarding the copyright of the Moorman photograph, I could find no mention of Moorman or the UPI registering for copyright anywhere. For instance, the National Gallery of Art makes no mention of copyright registry. Furthermore, according to the Library of Congress, prior to 1964, UPI rarely ever renewed copyright, let alone even registered for it in the first place. And since the other two images are simply derivatives of the first, I'm assuming that they don't have their own copyright registry, right?... ~ HAL333 04:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A separate registry, no; a separate copyright, potentially, if the changes meet the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the black and white image meets the threshold — it's just zoomed in and brightened. But I have no idea if the colored image is copyrighted... If you think it is, I think we can probably use it under a fair use license. ~ HAL333 05:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Location

[edit]
  • This article has been on my Watchlist and I've noticed your edits, but I haven't taken time to thoroughly review the article. My first action was to scan the sources and the only one that strikes me as possibly objectionable is the citation to Oliver Stone. As Stone has plunged head first into JFK conspiracy theories, I am hesitant to accept him as a source on anything related to the JFK assassination even when he happens to be correct on some fact. (I will also ping Canada Jack because he might have some feedback on this subject.) - Location (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. And especially since Stone sources that material from Jim Marrs, I'll find a replacement. ~ HAL333 04:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced it to Lane, who isn't ideal but is preferable to Marrs. I also attributed it to him and I think his claim (whether right or wrong) is of historical pertinence. ~ HAL333 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states: "The Warren Commission did not include the Moorman photograph in the volumes of its 1964 report. Mark Lane noted this in his 1966 work Rush to Judgment and claimed that the photo had been "suppressed"." I think Myers[22] is a reliable source for stating that Moorman did not testify before the WC and that her photograph did not appear in the WC report, however, Lane's claim of suppression fails WP:REDFLAG and should be removed unless we have a reliable secondary source reiterating his claim. We certain don't want to go with what Lane claimed without addressing what Moorman herself said: "The Warren Commission subpoenaed me, but I had my ankle turned and I couldn’t come. And they never called me again".[23] Larry Sabato is another reliable source who indicated that Moorman told him that she was invited to testify but asked for a postponement after the ankle injury.[24] (BTW: Here is Moorman's 2011 interview in which she said she turned her angle after being contacted by the WC, but she clarified that she was not actually subpoenaed. [See 11:05.]) Sabato also indicated that Moorman didn't see anything out of the ordinary behind the fence and that she was not convinced there is a second shooter in the photograph. As the person who captured the photo, her opinion is noteworthy and should be considered for inclusion. - Location (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solid points. Give me a few days to tinker with it and see if I can dredge up some more RS. ~ HAL333 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that. Fixed. ~ HAL333 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm indifferent. But I can remove it if you want. ~ HAL333 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone else has some insight on how to handle this, I guess I would just leave it in. - Location (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article in The Irish Times states "A detailed reconstruction of the photograph confirmed that, while 'Badge Man' would have had a clear shot on Kennedy, the figure would have measured 2.88ft (88cm) in height." I don't see that in the article nor do I see it in HSCA Appendix IV or the snippet of Bugliosi I can see, so I'm not sure if it is usable or if it can be backed up by another source. - Location (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know where they're getting that from. It sounds like something from Dale Myers, but I couldn't find him saying that. Also, it just doesn't make any sense: the fence itself is five feet tall. ~ HAL333 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myers has a page on this [25] which mentions the original 1982 claim by Mack and subsequent research which shows that the figure, to be of human size, needed to be well back of the fence and hovering over the ground. The specific height from The Irish Times isn't mentioned, but might be worth searching for the research Geoffrey Crawley did on this - as mentioned in Myers' article - as that may be where the height claim comes from. Canada Jack (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Myers page is already cited in the article. I tried finding the original Crawley material, but to no avail.... ~ HAL333 20:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth adding that Turner/Mack/White said Crawley's findings confirmed theirs, but that he later said that they did not... and that he said that he thought Turner was ignoring what he actually reported. Crawley's obituary touches on Turner's documentary here. From GBooks there is likely more about this on page 4 of the 1988 issue of The British Journal of Photography, but it wouldn't be worth the $18 on Amazon to me. - Location (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as a footnote, if that's all right. The Guardian obit presents Crawley as indifferent on the subject, which I don't think is accurate. And I unfortunately have the same stance on the BJP article (I really wish all journals were open-source). ~ HAL333 05:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the larger photo, is there any chance of getting a circle around or arrow pointing to the area of speculation? This version of Moorman's polaroid photo actually has better detail for this. - Location (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- I tried adding a red circle to the current image but it kept turning to greyscale when I tried to export it. I just made a request to the Graphics Lab. I've also actually thought about using that image. It is higher resolution, but holistically I think it's inferior. ~ HAL333 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding from reading the link to Dale Myers is that the one with the thumbprint is the original, but it was photographed before the thumbprint began to show and before the image faded. Apparently all of the images without the thumbprint are reproductions of the photographed photo, which explains the decrease in sharpness. Is it worth putting both with a note in the caption? - Location (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the same impression. I tinkered with having both versions of the Moorman photograph but it didn't work: it was too crowded and there were sandwiching issues. However, the degraded original polaroid has grown on me and I have added it in place of the UPI version. I ended up putting the details from Myers in another footnote, if that works. ~ HAL333 20:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this, consider adding a note under the full photo that its actual size is 2.125 x 2.875 inches and that the head of the Badge Man measures only about 1/69 of an inch wide. - Location (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 07:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skepticism voiced seems to only address the evaluation of the photograph, however, I think eyewitness accounts related to this should also be mentioned (e.g. see John C. McAdams here and Michel Jacques Gagné here) especially since the opening sentence does not really make clear that this is a fringe claim. - Location (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already included that no shooter was found on the grassy knoll when the crowd rushed there, and that Lee Bowers (the best grassy knoll witness) did not see the Badge Man. However, I added a bit more and also mentioned the lack of any witnesses in the lead. I didn't mention any more names as I think Bowers is by far the most notable and don't want to get bogged down in too much detail. ~ HAL333 06:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider adding Abraham Zapruder, too, as he easily has more name recognition that Bowers. This article in Commentary states: "Well, if 'badge man' is an assassin, he fired from a spot right next to, at most fifteen feet below and to the right of, Zapruder and Sitzman. Again, they did not notice." The article also states: "Was Gordon Arnold there? He does not appear in photos, though some find him in the Moorman photo right next to 'badge man.' (Apparently Arnold did not notice the 'badge man' shooting the President.)" This only serves to show that Arnold was fabricating his story, so I'm not sure it would need to be worked into the article. - Location (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zapruder has been added. ~ HAL333 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede currently states: "Badge Man is a name given to an unknown figure that is purportedly visible within the Mary Moorman photograph of the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that this figure is a sniper firing a weapon at the President from the grassy knoll." There is something that strikes me a bit odd about the wording of the first part of the first sentence. If "purportedly" means "allegedly", is it the presence of a figure that is alleged or is its visibility alleged? - Location (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's really a semantical difference... But I'm open to changes. Should I change it to "purportedly present" or something else? ~ HAL333 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should drop "a name give to". For example, we say "Red Rover is team game..." We don't say "Red Rover is the name of a team game..." Here are a couple ideas:
"Badge Man is a figure/a shooter/a sniper/an assassin purportedly present within Mary Moorman's photograph of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."
"Badge Man is a figure/a shooter/a sniper/an assassin purported/claimed by some conspiracy theorists to be present within Mary Moorman's photograph of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."
FWIW, Lisa Grunwald in the December 1991 issue of LIFE described the Badge Man this way: "One of the purported grassy knoll assailants. In a blowup of a tiny section of a Polaroid photograph, some researchers see the image of a man with a badge on one shoulder and a flash of light before him." UPI said Badge Man is "the name given to an image that some theorists say is a second shooter that can be seen in blowups of the photos".[26] - Location (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've reworded it mostly along the lines of your first suggestion. I went with figure in the very small chance that it may just be Arnold with a camera. ~ HAL333 20:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to come back to this. For those who think Badge Man is a person, AFAIK all of them think he is a shooter/sniper/assassin and none of them think it is Arnold. I think some CTs think Arnold was next to Badge Man, per this unreliable source. - Location (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! I appreciate these thorough comments and hope you do this for the rest of my JFK assassination candidates (John F. Kennedy autopsy is in the pipeline). According to the Dallas Morning News, Mack's first theory about the Badge Man was that he was Arnold (i.e. the police uniform is an army uniform and the muzzle flare is a glinting metal camera). Even ignoring that, I just prefer "figure". Is there any chance I could stick with it? ~ HAL333 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your rational. Ironically it looks like I had added that bit to the article with this edit in May 2013, but it was eventually removed by another editor with this edit in November 2017 stating that it was not in the citation given. It looks like I had added a hidden note that a citation was needed for the date, so that may have prompted the removal. - Location (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider including something regarding alleged identity of the alleged assassin: "Some conspiracy theorists believe/speculate that J. D. Tippit, the Dallas Police Department office shot and killed by Oswald 45 minutes after the assassination of Kennedy, is the Badge Man."[27][28] According to Bugliosi, The Men Who Killed Kennedy suggest Lucien Sarti is Badge Man.[29] Of course there are a million people named as a grassy knoll shooter, but most reliable sources don't link them in name to Badge Man. - Location (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butting in, well done Location, if any RSs mention Tippett as a possible Badge Man it'd certainly be worth adding -- makes perfect sense of course, he wouldn't even have had to disguise himself...! OTOH I think the way Sarti is mentioned in the article already is fine, don't think "According to Bugliosi" is really needed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooops. I didn't even see that Sarti had already been noted! (FWIW: here and here are two UPI articles reporting that The Men Who Killed Kennedy claims Sarti was disguised as a police officer when he fired a fatal rifle shot. The article doesn't explicitly mention Badge Man, but it does refer to the photo.) - Location (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Tippit claim -- that's a great point and had never occured to me. Although the J.D. Tippit website linked above is a little rickety (I actually sort of miss the times when all websites looked like that.), I think it's an RS as it was put out by Myers. ~ HAL333 20:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Per my earlier comments in this section, I don't think we should include fringe views without a rebuttal (i.e. "Mark Lane noted this in his 1966 work Rush to Judgment and claimed that the photo had been 'suppressed'."). While I feel that much good work has been done, I have difficulty allowing Wikipedia to put that on its front page. Perhaps I am the outlier here so I can bring this up to WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this issue, including removing the bit about Lane. Lane's claims about suppression, cited directly to Lane, violate WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Location and HAL333: have these concerns been resolved? Hog Farm Talk 02:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Moorman photograph
  • "where some witnesses believed the shots had originated": I'm not sure about AmEng, but in BrEng it should be "from where": I leave it to your judgement
  • "which concluded that there was a second assassin on the grassy knoll based on discredited acoustic evidence": I think this is a bit garbled and/or unclear. Maybe it would work better as "which concluded that there was a second assassin on the grassy knoll based on what is now discredited acoustic evidence" (or "based on what was later discredited")?
Gary Mack
  • " In the mid-1980s, White put": "he put"
Skepticism
  • "It has been proposed": are there any names that can be put to this – it's a bit weasely other wise – even if it is along the lines of "Bugliosi states ..."

That's it. A short and nicely put together article. – SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 19:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The Badge Man is an unknown figure that is purportedly present". That reads oddly. Should it not be 'The Badge Man is an unknown figure who is purportedly present'? If you don't want to personalise it, then I think "unknown" needs to either go or be changed.
  • Image caption: "Enlargement of the Badge Man". From the original or the higher quality photograph?
  • "whether or not the Badge Man is a genuine human figure." Why use the word "genuine"? Is there such a thing as a non-genuine human figure? Similarly in the main article.
  • "the figure is actually an optical distortion from a Coca-Cola bottle or simply different background elements." To mean what I think you want it to, I suggest a comma after "bottle".

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Preciate the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm going to start taking a look over this now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #1 – what is the year 2004 based on? It doesn't appear on the webpage in question at all. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page gives 1995-2008. (This differs from ref #10, which does specify 2004.) Also, link Dale K. Myers.
I assumed it was the same as the other. Removed. ~ HAL333 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #5 – the short description is "Warren Report", but "Warren" isn't used at all in the long description, which is quite confusing.
It's not officially called the Warren Report, but that's it's WP:COMMONNAME. Is it okay if I leave it? ~ HAL333 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that if someone, say, prints this off, so the highlighting feature isn't available, it wouldn't be obvious to a non-expert what the short citation was referring to. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugliosi, Vincent (2007) – the MOS prefers spaced initials, so the publisher should be "W. W." rather than "W.W." (And link to W. W. Norton & Company.)
  • HSCA Final Assassination Report – Add the publisher, "United States Government Printing Office", expand out HSCA to "House Select Committee on Assassinations" and change "Hearings and Appendix Volumes" to "Appendix to Hearings" per the actual report.
  • Lane, Mark (1966) – Pipe publisher to Holt McDougal.
  • Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Report). 1964. – I would recommend linking to https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report and add the publisher as listed there: "United States Government Printing Office".
  • Testimony of Clyde A. Haygood. Warren Commission Hearings (Report) – Again, add "United States Government Printing Office" as publisher. The actual title appears to be "Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy".
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources. Although refs #1, 10 and 20 are self-published sources, Dale K. Myers is clearly an established subject-matter expert, and so these are fine.
  • Searches in all the usual places did not reveal any glaring omissions.
  • Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text. Note that I was unable to access the main source used, Bugliosi (2007), but I am content based on the checks I was able to carry out.

Overall, the sourcing on this seems good. My quibbles are mostly related to formatting and consistency. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my lacuna. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 04:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 *cough* Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added one reply above. It also looks like some additional sources have been added since my previous review. Working through them now.

  • Ref #6 – Can "Sabato, Larry J. (2013)" be added to the "Works cited" section, and a short citation be provided, per the other book sources. A publisher location also needs adding, and hyphens added to the isbn for consistency. No access-date needed.
  • Ref #7 – The hyphen in the title needs to be an endash.
  • Ref #8 – YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, what are the credentials that make this video/podcast meet our criteria? Also, some formatting issues with the citation: should be "Last, First" for the host.

@HAL333: Thanks for your work so far, now some more for you! Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am responsible for adding those sources, so I attempted to fix those issues with this edit and this one. Although the subject of the YouTube interview is undoubtably Mary Ann Moorman, I am not clear on what the criteria are for including a source of that nature so I removed it. (It was provided as direct confirmation of what Sabato wrote.) Not sure if WP:ABOUTSELF is applicable. -Location (talk)
One other thing: The citation to Myers that I added (currently #7) does not include "Archived from the original..." in it as do the other three (#1, #11, #21). I am not sure why that is necessary, but I'm noting it here for review. -Location (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from S#

[edit]
  • Before and during the assassination
  • I wonder if Zapruder film would be a better target that the man himself; can't do both, of course, per WP:SEA.
The film itself is linked in the final sentence of that paragraph. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or the nearby Zapruder".
Fixed.
  • Why was this "an impossible position to fire a weapon at the motorcade"? Prsumably because there was no such steep incline at the knoll?
Clarified.
  • Would be cool to extract the img of the infamous cola bottle from somewhere  :)
I wish I could - I can't even find a photo of it, let alone a licensable one. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! Cheers! SN54129 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 04:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serial Number 54129, just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: "Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text. Note that I was unable to access the main source used, Bugliosi (2007), but I am content based on the checks I was able to carry out." Like the one I carried out in the source review? Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please all ignore that complete nonsense. (More haste, less speed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duly ignored, but updated too  :) @Gog the Mild: SN54129 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: coincidentally I've got an epub of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History if you'd ;like to borrow it? SN54129 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Interested in a topic I know nothing about. The lead, that I normally skip until the end, makes sense. I'll comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The link to the photograph takes to the person who took it, - could the photograph be bold in the woman's article, as a redirect, to explain that at a glance?

I read through the article without any problems, thank you and those who reviewed before me! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! I wasn't confident about whether I could bold "Badge Man" in Moorman's article, but I did add a mention in that article's lead. ~ HAL333 02:23, 26 February 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) 23 March 2023 "Snakehips"_Johnson/archive1&diff=1146289244&oldid=1146289244.

Ken "Snakehips" Johnson

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Snakehips" was an intriguing figure. A swing band leader who had an early influence in British swing music who promised to have a bigger impact on the style, but his life was unfortunately cut short by a German bomb on the Café de Paris at the age of just 26. This underwent a rewrite some time ago and has matured nicely since then. It's had a good PR from Ceoil, Serial Number 54129 and Tim riley and welcomes further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

After a further rereading just now I have nothing to add to my comments at the peer review, with the exception that although the text in Impact and legacy has been changed, the caption of the picture of Al Bowlly in that section still says that he accompanied the orchestra, rather than vice versa. "Performed with" would be preferable in my view, both there and in the text of the Recordings section.

I am envious of SchroCat for overhauling this article, which in more ways than one is more in my domain than his, but we waive that point, we do not press it, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Clear, balanced, a cracking read, well and widely referenced and as well illustrated as I imagine is possible given the period to which the article refers. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 15:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I'd caught the other 'performed with' previously, but forgot the caption. Now done. (Speaking of which, I need to do the alt texts, before Nikkimaria gets on my case about it again!) Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Accessibility review

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • I think the intro paragraph should make it clearer that he died as a result of the Blitz, not merely during it.
  • "Surinam". More usually "Suriname"?
  • "African-American dancers" vs. "African American dancer" Check similar usages for consistency.
  • "On saxophone the band comprised three Jamaicans (Bertie King, Louis Stephenson and Joe Appleton) and Robert Mumford-Taylor who was of Sierra Leonean descent." At least one comma might be useful.
  • "The band continued performing at the Old Florida Club and taking day-time stage work," This implies a previous mention of taking day-time stage work, which doesn't seem to be the case.
  • "BBC" is linked on other than the first usage.
  • "His impact on both London clubland, and social changes brought about from the war led to the emergence of later racially-mixed bands." This reads a bit oddly to my eyes, you're saying that he impacted a) clubland and b) the social changes brought about from the war? Or is the "both" a stray word?
  • "Johnson both appeared with his band on BBC Radio and acted as a disc jockey, presenting programmes such as Calypso and other west Indian Music;" Should west be capped?
  • "test match" should test be capped? I note that our article on same does.
That's about it. Interesting subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Any reason why there's one random ref in the lead? The same fact is cited in the body so I don't think it also needs citing in the lead
  • "Johnson studied law at London University" => "Johnson studied law at the University of London" (correct name)
  • Wikilink Jimmie Lunceford
  • "On saxophone the band comprised" - comprised isn't really the right word here. Maybe "included"?
  • "both of whom were white, but would wear" => "both of whom were white but would wear"
  • "the move to music for dancing was advantageous for the band "their music..." => "the move to music for dancing was advantageous for the band as "their music..."
  • "The Café de Paris capitalised on the situation; with the club underground, beneath the Rialto cinema; the" - one of those semi-colons should definitely be something else, probably a comma
  • I'd move the one-sentence paragraph about Johnson's funeral onto the end of the previous one
  • Al Bowlly caption needs a full stop
  • "although many bands, including those led by Hutchinson still faced" => "although many bands, including those led by Hutchinson, still faced"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm an inexperienced reviewer here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what a FA bio is expected to be like, but much of this article seems to be about the band and other people he admired or was close to rather than about him. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, no man is an island, so anyone who operates as a bandleader is going to have their professional career fairly prominent. The people referred to are not necessarily people he admired, but people who influenced him, his style and his music. - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okeydoke. Like I said, inexperienced here. Valereee (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I think it's a fair question to ask, regardless of FAC experience but, in this instance, I think the balance between him and his wider professional circle is one we get more or less right. It's difficult to deal with him and his impact without explaining the milieu in which he worked and moved. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Reading through. Looks good; struggling for quibbles.

  • Lead: causing Thompson and several musicians to leave - "causing" or "forcing"
  • Lead: The fourth para is slightly out-of-sync timeline wise and says "after Johnson's death" twice. Maybe move the sentence "Johnson was tall, elegant, and modelled himself professionally on Cab Calloway" somewhere near to "Increasingly popular, they were employed as".
  • Early life: Through Bradley's influence Johnson was recorded in 1934 for the film Oh, Daddy!, . What does influence mean in this context (we use the word in a different meaning in the sentence before). I'd drop "released in 1935" Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career: Changed the sect title as all careers are professional
  • Career: The paragraph beginning "In April 1939" is followed by a para leading with "towards the end of 1938"
  • Career: In general these later paras seems slightly stubby and veering towards prose-line, would do some merging.
  • More later. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any remaining issues are small and deal with myself without itemising here. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Not much to pick at here, but a few queries

  • nearly all-black—mainly black?
  • As leader of an all-black orchestra—does this contradict "nearly all-black"?
  • Through Bradley's influence Johnson was recorded in 1934—comma after "influence"
  • 50-kg high-explosive bomb—conversion?
  • Deniz and Bromley both had a broken leg—each had a broken leg
  • Johnson was tall—6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m)—elegant and handsome—Do we need his height again?

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I heard of Johnson only recently; he's a peripheral figure in the plot of Ben Aaronovitch's Moon Over Soho, in his excellent Rivers of London series. I thought he was an interesting figure then and am glad to have a chance to read more about him.

  • Any reason not to link Ellington?
  • I think the lead and body are a bit out of sync in how they describe the two bands Johnson formed in Britain. The lead says "He returned to Britain and set up the West Indian Dance Orchestra, a nearly all-black swing band, with Leslie Thompson, a Jamaican musician." The body says "In 1936 he teamed up with the Jamaican trumpeter Leslie Thompson to form an all-black jazz band, the Aristocrats (or Emperors) of Jazz, sometimes the "Jamaican Emperors", who made their debut that April", then "As Thompson could not find suitable black trombonists, he employed Reg Amore and Freddie Greenslade, both of whom were white but would wear blackface to ensure the band were seen as an all-black ensemble.", which seems to be about the same version of the band, and then "Johnson and the West Indian Dance Orchestra appeared in an early television broadcast on the BBC in either 1938 or 1939", which is the first mention of that name for the band in the body. If the "West Indian Dance Orchestra" is the "almost all-black" version then the lead has it wrong. If they're the same band with a name change and a couple of personnel changes I think that should be clearer in the body.
  • "Culturally the orchestra made an impact in society: the all-black outfit was the only one in the country." Perhaps "apparently all-black"?
  • "Fraser wrote that Johnson became...": can we introduce Fraser?
  • "the Henderson Twins on vocal": "vocals"? Or is this a usage I'm not aware of?

I had a look in the British Newspaper Archive and found lots of coverage of Johnson's radio performances, but nothing that I think is worth adding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Moon Over Soho - that was the jazz vampires one, wasn't it? Many thanks for your comments. All dealt with, bar one - the description of the bands.
The sources are rather garbled on this point – and patchy when it comes to the full make-up of the band in places. And it doesn't help that the name of the band was a little fluid at times too. We know that there were two white in the band, who wore blackface much of the time. It's less clear whether they left the band at any point, or—if they did—when and under what name the band was operating. Despite the two white members in there, the sources refer to the band as the first all-black jazz or swing band – even during the time Amore and Greenslade were among the players. According to this, the trombone player for the recording session in Feb 1938 was Lad Busby, but whether that was a one-off I'd not like to say – I think we may be going into OR territory if we draw too much inference from that one listing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the jazz vampires one! I think what's bothering me about the band names is that the lead doesn't seem to agree with the body. If the sources are garbled, I can see we need to leave some points unsettled, but the lead says the band was formed as the West Indian Dance Orchestra, whereas in the body it says it was formed as the Aristocrats of Jazz. I don't think the lead has to reflect all the uncertainties in the body, but it reads as a direct contradiction at the moment, so I think some change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike. I've tweaked the lead a little, and it now follows the correct naming chronology - hopefully it reads OK too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One more tweak I would suggest is that since "Johnson and the West Indian Dance Orchestra appeared in an early television broadcast on the BBC in either 1938 or 1939" is the first mention in the body of that name for the band, perhaps make it "Johnson and the West Indian Dance Orchestra, as the band were now known, appeared in an early television broadcast on the BBC in either 1938 or 1939"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial#

[edit]
All my concerns were resolved at the PR, and the article has only improved since then. I meant to look in here, but I've been beaten to it. Still, at least that means I'm available for the
SN54129 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • Fraser's entry in the Ox. Comp. Bl. Music requires pagination.
  • Ditto, Simons in Aural History
  • Need a section with one entry be called, generally, 'Other' rather than specifically Television'? I could understand multiple entries, but.
  • At first glance, there's a helluva reliance on the Radio Times, but I note it's primarily for the bald statements re. Johnson's broadcasts.
  • The literature used otherwise appears to be a broad coverage of reliable authors, presses and publishers; nothing jumps out as irrelevant, while, conversely, a courage of the databases, etc., leaves me assured that nothing of any particular import has been committed that would not lead the article into WP:UNDUE territory.
  • Nice selection of both primary and secondary materials.
A sad story; a nice article. Cheers. SN54129 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SN. I’ve dealt with these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 01:58, 12 March 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) 23 March 2023 [30].

Illusion of Kate Moss

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid 2000s, English supermodel Kate Moss had a small drug scandal, which lost her a ton of sponsorships and saw the press gleefully smearing her as "Cocaine Kate". Her friend Alexander McQueen remained steadfast, and for his Autumn/Winter 2006 show The Widows of Culloden, conceived an art piece featuring Moss to show his support for her. The unnamed piece used an adapted theatrical technique, Pepper's ghost, to project a ghostly image of Moss at life size onstage at the end of the Widows runway show, leading to audience tears and a rowdy standing ovation. The piece was featured at both stagings of the retrospective exhibit Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty, and has garnered significant critical analysis as an art piece in its own right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV, a gentle reminder. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this article open all day! I just got side tracked reading about the FBI. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understandable :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moss retired from runway modelling in 2004, focusing on advertising contracts and other ventures. Recommend "to focus".
  • Done
  • I wonder if the description of the illusion shouldn't be in the first paragraph of #Illusion, and then explained. To that end, why not explain Pepper's ghost in the prose?
  • I've put a very trimmed explanation in the prose. I moved the sentence about serpentine dance later down and have collapsed the first two paragraphs into one. I think they logically lead into each other, so I would prefer not to reverse the order.
  • [...] dress created by Sarah Burton [...] Who?
  • oops, relic from the split. Linked & given context
  • Why is paragraph 2 of #Reception and legacy placed before paragraph 3?
  • Overall legacy before drilling down to one specific element of legacy, plus para 4 is also about the museum exhibit so I'd have to move that up too, and then I have two specific paragraphs before one broad paragraph
  • [...] whereas the illusion functioned as an aesthetic horror that depended on the audience's emotions. I cannot parse this sentence past "that depended". Is that just academic gobbledygook?
  • lol, it is a little bit that. Tweaked a little to be more explanatory - how's that?
Much better. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses noted above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Supporting. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I don't think we ordinarily do archiving for Flickr images on Commons, I think the review bot tag with the original URL is taken to be sufficient. But I've done the tumblr one.
  • Fair enough. I am probably overly cautious when it comes to this kind of thing. It is best to archive the Tumblr one, but I think the Flickr one is likely safer and would not have link rot or death. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (had been embroiled in a scandal at the time of the Widows show) in the lead, shouldn't it specify that it was a drug scandal? The current wording seems to skirt around the issue, and it may be unnecessarily vague or confusing for readers who look at the lead first without the context provided by the rest of the article.
  • Tweaked
  • This is more of a clarification question than a question. Would it be beneficial to provide some additional context to Moss's alleged drug use? It may be more fitting for the Kate Moss article, but I think it would help unfamiliar readers to add that this controversy and the subsequent fallout was from photos of her alleged drug use. It also probably did not help that she was and still is one of the models most connected with the heroin chic style. I am not saying this would need a lot more prose, but it just seems like one sentence is not enough context.
  • I reworded it to say what the scandal came from, not sure if you need more detail than that?
  • Looks good to me. Thank you clarifying this point. This is probably all that context that is needed as further information would likely be best reserved for the Moss article and give it undue weight here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (By 2006, she had not walked in a fashion show in years.) I would specify the amount of years as I'd imagine there would be a more exact figure out there for this kind of information.
  • I'm not sure what source my original wording came from, but from some further checking, her absence from the runway turned out to have nothing to do with the scandal. She chose to retire from runway modelling in 2004, well before the drug thing. She was making fat bank from other things, especially advertising, so presumably she was shifting her focus. I've revised the article to reflect this.
  • Thank you for looking into this further. To piggyback on my previous suggestion and response, I think this section looks great. It touches on Moss enough to provide the context for this particularly event without getting waylaid by it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instances like ("to show that she was more ethereal, bigger than the situation she was in.") and ("only Alexander McQueen could provide the astonishing feat of techno-magic that ended his show."), shouldn't the punctuation be on the outside of the quotation marks? I was only curious because neither instance are full-quoted sentences unlike later instances in the article.
  • Yeah, I never get this right lol
  • For Citation 28, I believe you should mark that it requires a subscription to view the full article.
  • It doesn't seem to ask for one from me
  • For this part (In 2014, Vanity Fair named it), I would include the name of the author in the prose to be consistent with the previous instances where the writer and publication are credited that way.
  • Done

I hope these comments are helpful so far. This is everything that I noticed after reading through the article once, and after everything has been addressed, I will do several, more thorough readings and add any comments if I notice anything further. I have done some minor edits to the article, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with at all. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, all done for now. Let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 49, I do not believe the title should be in all italics as it is the name of a YouTube video.
  • Fair enough. I personally would not use that the AV media template for a YouTube video and I generally use the more generic Web template to avoid this issue. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference. I still think it is an issue to have a title represented incorrectly in a citation, but I will leave that kind of thing up to the source reviewer. This would not hold back my review as I am primarily focused on the prose. If the information is represented incorrectly and cannot be changed due to the template, I'd think the answer would be to use a different template rather than leave an error. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in the middle of reading the article. I should be done by the end of tomorrow. This is the only thing I have really noticed. I had some very minor edits. It is nothing major, but I just wanted to be transparent on this page. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Peppers_Ghost.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
  • File:Loie_Fuller.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Photographer Frederick Glasier exhibited his photos & made prints for sale in his own studio throughout the early 1900s, see [31]. The print is signed 1902, indicating it was printed for sale at that time. Per Commons, making copies available for sale to the public is considered publication, putting this well into PD. If we want to consider it as an unpublished work instead, Glasier died 1950, and PD for unpublished works with known authors is 1953, so we're also into PD by that metric. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tkbrett

[edit]

Comments inbound. Tkbrett (✉) 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I will get this done tonight. Tkbrett (✉) 20:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this subject or fashion in general, but I think on the whole it reads really well and none of it went over my head.

A few small things: I'm unsure on the first bit of the lead, since it seems "Illusion of Kate Moss" could be a descriptive title, in which case it would not be emboldened. (I'm thinking about WP:BENOTBOLD here, which isn't MOS, but an essay). Also, since there is no official title, I think "The illusion of Kate Moss is an art piece ..." is perhaps better written as "An illusion of Kate Moss was an art piece ..." What do you think?

No, I think those still get bolded - see Checkers speech or Symphony No. 2 (Mahler). Per WP:AVOIDBOLD, you only ditch the bold when it's awkward to use it in a lead sentence. It also gets the "the" as it's realistically the only such illusion (both Checkers and Symphony have the "the" too, despite being descriptive titles). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In the past I was never too certain on the bolding bit, but I think you are correct. Also, The should be fine then. Tkbrett (✉) 12:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, watch out for a few uses of "noted" in the Gothic tropes subsection (MOS:EDITORIAL). Tkbrett (✉) 02:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one since there were two in a paragraph. However my usage here isn't off MOS; I'm using "noted" in the neutral sense of "so-and-so wrote xyz" rather than POV phrasing "it should be noted that xyz". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I pointed at the wrong one above. It should have been MOS:SAID, which lists "noted" as being better served by a more neutral word. Tkbrett (✉) 12:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think my usage of it is an issue, I've used "X noted" in multiple previous FAs as a variation of "X said" or "X described". MOS:SAID doesn't prohibit the usage, it just says care should be taken. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue is that by using noted, it reads like Cartner-Morley is correct in asserting the Shakespeare connection, when this is instead her opinion. I think suggested or commented are less loaded. Tkbrett (✉) 13:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to add a ref that McQueen described it as Macbeth-influenced, and that Cartner-Morley is arguing the Banquo connection. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good.

As I mentioned above, I think the article conveys the subject nicely to a reader entirely ignorant of fashion. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 01:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Excellent – this was one of the more intriguing aspects in your last FAC, so I'm delighted to see a bit more background on it.

Illusion
Gothic tropes
  • "English lecturer Catherine Spooner": this looks like we're describing her nationality, rather than specialism. Maybe "the professor of literature Catherine Spooner"? (I've also added this to The Widows of Culloden article, where she is just referred to as "Spooner" on her first mention.

That's it. Very little from me (although I have tweaked the quote marks per WP:LQ in these edits). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! I was disappointed not to be able to carve off another article from Widows, I would've liked to get a little FT :P Alas. The Spooner thing in the Widows article is probably a relic from splitting this one; thanks for catching it. I've made both of your suggested changes, and as always thanks for catching me on LQ and BrEng, lol. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Great to see this here, on a growing series that has certainly widened my horizons. One thing, as both designer and model are from the UK, should the article br in BRENG. Not so much the spelling and adding a whole load of "u"'s, but the false title thing, eg "a short film of the English model Kate Moss".

Will be away for bit will revisit on return. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe its because of the alliteration, but the lead opening sentance isn't really telling what the "thing" is - "performance projected". what? Live Performance art staged using projectors? Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the lead a bit - how's that? (As a side note, I readded "actually" - sorry, I know you removed it, but I think it reads better with it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, have read it all, and made trivil edits which matter to me not if reverted. Last concern, is the official title the "Illusion of Kate Moss"? If so why is it not "Illusion of Kate Moss" or Illusion of Kate Moss (not sure hat MOS recommends for performance art, but as a title it should have one or the other.
    Anyway, none of these are vexing...although "actually" is my most hated word...may be "in fact". Not withstanding,
  • Support. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I'll actually be sure to sneak it into all my future FACs just for you ;) As for the title formatting, there is no official title as far as I can tell. "Illusion of Kate Moss" is a descriptive title, so per MOS:NEITHER, it gets a sad naked title with no italics and no quotation marks. Cheers and thanks for your support! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to out future edit wars so :) Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recused (comment below) and TOC comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

The source review ought to take about a day or two to complete. I'll be doing an indexed review of 1 randomly chosen citation per each 5 citations, and try to report in a day or two for the one or two dozen randomly chosen checks for the source review. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My TOC comments are going to somewhat limited to three or four items starting with the choice of title for this article:

(1) After doing a Google search on the keywords, then it appears that by a factor or 2 or 3 the preferred reference to this production is to call it the Kate Moss Hologram. The second favorite choice among Google keyword searches is Ghost of Kate Moss. I'm not sure that "Illusion" is the most recognizable form for this fashion art work by McQueen. It is consistent with your Widows article (which I supported), however, even within Wikipedia when I look it up under the article for Savage Beauty, the preference is again for "Hologram". (See comments above from Ceoil).

PMC,I agree with this actually, hence my confusion above about what the article was about. An illusion is an effect, a hologram is a thing. Ceoil (talk)
Addressing points 1 and 3 together: a common descriptor is not always the most correct title for an article. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". Referring to this effect as a "hologram" is factually incorrect, as the article explicitly states, so it would be improper as an article title. "Ghost" is also inappropriate as a descriptive title, as it implies we are referring to a literal manifestation of Kate Moss's spirit. "Illusion" is the most sensible, as it tells the reader that this is an illusory effect but does not falsely imply the technical wizardry of a hologram. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add to the lead: The illusion of Kate Moss (sometimes known as the Kate Moss Hologram is a.... Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to recuse from further participation in the source review for the article and related discussion here. Andrew Bolton calls this the Kate Moss hologram and Kate herself calls this a hologram. Nick Knight (McQueen's photograph) prefers to call it Pepper's Ghost of Kate Moss. Possibly Ceoil or another editor can take over the source review of this article as I am recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why this would cause you to recuse from the entire review, but okay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, the first paragraph of the lead already mentions that it is sometimes inaccurately called a hologram. It feels repetitive to have it mentioned twice within a few sentences. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see now. The article title is far from a deal breaker for me. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point two was really several points written as one paragraph. I'm going to split it up and address each one individually so I don't miss anything (and because I suspect you will have responses and it will be more organized that way). (2) Vami's comment about the organization of your TOC on the issue of where to place the Reception section appears to deserve some more comment.

Firstly, the last paragraph of the Analysis section contains some critique remarks, and it might look better if it were added to the Reception section instead of the Analysis section.

  • I don't think moving those would make sense. That paragraph discusses analysis of the illusion as a piece of technical work, which belongs under Analysis and not Reception, which focuses on "did we like it or not". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More extensively, I'm going to raise the issue of whether the TOC should separate the aesthetic reception of this fashion art work from the political reception of this work.

  • I'm honestly not sure what you mean when you say the "political reception of this work". There's the Spanish holo-protest, but that's about it politics-wise, and what I wrote is about all I could find sourcing for on that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Kate Moss being part of the Heroin Chic movement of her time, and potentially there is more to be said about this, as well as McQueen possible participation in it. I seem to remember alot about Moss appearing waif-like and with heavy dark mascara with heavy dark eye make-up doing the heroin chic era. If you separate the history aspects of this fashion artwork from the aesthetics aspects of the work, then it might be useful to add one of the heroin chic image of Moss which were very well received for their aesthetic qualities at that time and highly imitated.

  • Heroin chic was an aesthetic popular in early 1990s fashion, and was long out of style by the time Widows premiered in 2005. I did not locate any content that discusses this illusion with reference to heroin chic, which makes sense to me as it's about 10–12 years too late. We don't have any free images of Moss from the heroin chic era, and I don't think it would be appropriate to use a non-free one given the lack of relevance to the article content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, Analysis section normally comes before Legacy sections generally in Wikipedia articles).

  • I've moved the second paragraph of Reception & Legacy to the end of Analysis, but I have left the Legacy paragraphs where they are, as some of the Analysis content depends on knowing the legacy. I think this is reasonable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) You mention the phrase "the illusion" as least one or two dozen times as your favorite way of referencing this fashion art work. Try to take my comments in stride and as constructive. I'm not sure that 'illusion' standing by itself goes far enough to denote that a hologram is not a flat, 2-D image of something, but is instead a 3-D rendering with sculptural qualities not in evidence in conventional images. Kate Moss Hologram (or Alexander McQueen's Kate Moss Hologram) seems to be the preferred reference in the press for this fashion art work.

(4) Source review upcoming in a day or two. I'll try to complete it right after the weekend. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Starting Source review:

(1) Randomly choosing Hyl, #3 footnote, from first five. There's not one image of Moss in that article about the 1990s, and she is barely mentioned in the article (mentioned twice in passing with other models). You use it with two other references in the main text and nowhere else. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, and? It verifies that she walked in La Poupée, which is all I'm using it for. Sources don't have to verify every fact in the sentence they follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Randomly selecting #8 from the next five citations. The Evening Standard article appears to be using the scandal aspects to make the opposite point to what is covered in this Wikipedia article. They are stating that Moss continued to prosper and profit from the time the scandal broke in the press. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, and that came out after the scandal had died down. The point I'm getting at is that at the time of the show, she was emerging from a scandal that resulted in her getting publicly smeared and getting dropped from numerous contracts, which prompted McQueen to put her in his show. The fact that one of her companies made money that year - and frankly we don't know how, could be from investments or previous residuals coming in - does not negate the background that led to McQueen developing the illusion for her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Randomly selection #11 from the next five citations. The Vogue article does confirm the 'love you' message but does not mention the Neptune colelction by name. Is this the best choice for a citation for this collection? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Randomly selecting #20 from the next five citations. The Mower article does mention Kate and the image but does not cover any of the production crew or staff in the first use of this cite. The second use of the cite refers to Mower's well written text about Moss. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Givhan article in footer #29 verifies your quote of her. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(6) Armstrong article footer #31 is blocked from view without registration. Not verified; is there an alternate link? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(7) Footer #39, Cordoba, blocks access to article based on cookie acceptance required. You use it as one of three cites; possibly to have an alternate. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not wanting to accept cookies is not part of the FA criteria for evaluating sources. That was the only English-language RS that I found about it, and I don't speak Spanish. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Footer #41. Armstrong article confirms 'honoured in style'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(9) Footer #47. Spooner confirms 'haunting' but not 'melancholy'. You link 'melancholy' without Spooner using it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(10) Confirming Nick Knight interview with Moss towards the end of the citation list. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to hear from you on these points raised from the cite review (I'm doing them now since I may be away for the next two days). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot checks not done.

  • Most books give publisher locations. But several don't. Would it be possible to standardise this, one way or the other?
  • Should all have them now.
  • There are four cases where you cite from chapters of books. Would it be possible to give the page ranges of these chapters?
  • Was able to get all four.
  • In Journals, three titles are in title case and one in sentence case. Could these be standardised.
  • Fixed.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, Gog, I'll finish up later today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, all requested fixes are now in place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 23 March 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) 23 March 2023 [32].

Paint Drying

[edit]
Nominator(s): ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An independent filmmaker forced the British Board of Film Classification to watch paint dry for ten hours. I have exhausted all available sources I could find, including scraping TWL, and comparing this to other shorter film FAs (via Petscan) it looks suitable. This article became a GA on 6 January and has since been expanded nearly 3,000 bytes so hoping it qualifies :) ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 08:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "the BBFC rated it 'U' for 'Universal,'" - comma should be outside the quote marks
  • " indicating "no material likely to offend or harm."" - same here
  • "Charlie Shackleton (then known as Charlie Lyne)" - when is "then"?
  • "because Charlie Manson used Helter Skelter to justify murder?" - song title should be in quote marks
  • "According to Shackleton, his debut self-distributed film, Beyond Clueless, cost £867.60" - the film didn't cost this, the submission to the BBFC did
  • BBFC image caption needs a full stop
  • "It raised £961—worth 2 hours and 1 minute of footage—by 18 November" => "It had raised £961—worth 2 hours and 1 minute of footage—by 18 November"
  • "It was rated 15 for "very strong language."" - again, full stop should be outside quote marks
  • In fact, do a sweep for that generally - I see loads of cases where the punctuation should be outside the quotes
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: All done I believe; appreciate the comments! As for your third point, it was at the film's release… I am not sure when he changed his name, but thought it was worth noting for the reader as all sources refer to him as Lyne. How would you word it? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One outstanding comment is that the production section still starts off with "Charlie Shackleton (then known as Charlie Lyne)". As there's been no mention of any dates prior to this in the body, "then" is essentially meaningless. It would be better to say "Charlie Shackleton (known as Charlie Lyne from [whenever] to [whenever])". Hope that makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense. How does it look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

[edit]
  • He had expected to see conflict between the BBFC examiners and the visiting filmmakers, however was surprised that there was no such resolution; Shackleton added that, on the contrary, many of the attending filmmakers seemed to be supportive of the BBFC. Maybe some clarification -- were these other independent filmmakers, or primarily large commercial ones (whose budgets wouldn't be meaninfully affected) who were supportive?
  • Although Shackleton had no plans for a wide theatrical release, he stated that he was in talks with a cinema in London about possibly showing the film Date context?
Valereee (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I believe I have addressed your second point; as for your first, the sources unfortunately do not say. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Valereee, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, @Gog the Mild! I feel like I'm just getting my feet wet here and am not sure what is actually required of me to support. The process still feels pretty opaque to me! :D When I review for AfC or DYK or GA, I'm basically responsible for the checking all criteria, but obviously that's not the process here. Am I to assume that because someone else has given a checkmark to a certain aspect, I should accept that, even if I don't have personal experience with that person's ability to check that thing? Or is my 'support' just for my own concerns being addressed? Sorry if I should have figured this out already, I've read a bunch of the pages but maybe need to go over again? Valereee (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. It can be a bit opaque. Hopefully a steep but short learning curve. I suggest that you ignore any other reviewer's comments. We reviewers get the big bucks for synthesising the screed of text that is an FAC into a single word. Either 1. Look at the FA criteria and tell us which ones, or which parts of which ones, you feel are satisfactorily addressed and/or are not met (support and oppose), Or 2. give a freeform summary such as "Support for prose", or "Support for MoS coverage - so far as I understand the MoS". Just putting "Support" will usually be taken to mean something like your being reasonably happy with criteria 1a, the second part of 1b, 1d, 1e, all of 4, and all of 2 with the proviso that no one actually has a full understanding on the whole of the MoS,
That help, or are you now totally confused? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I saw this in the FAC list, decided to read it, and then thought "since I've read the whole thing, I might as well review it".

Thank you so much for reading it! I hope you enjoyed it. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the interview in "Further reading" not included as a source in the article?
  • It is not an interview but rather an article written by Shackleton himself. His motivations and Paint Drying's filmmaking process were all covered well enough in other RS sources instead, which seemed like a better alternative to me than citing Shackleton directly to avoid possible bias. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to trust that there is nothing in that source that can be added to the article. If there is, I wouldn't mind it being used as as inline citation. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the websites used in the references are not archived. I suggest running IABot and archiving them.
  • The film's release date in the infobox is 26 January, but the article only mentions that it was rated as U on that date. Is there a source for the release date that can be placed in the article?
  • The lede says it was "produced, written, directed and shot by Charlie Shackleton." There's no credits section (it would probably be too short) but where in the lede does it say that he had all of these roles? (We know that it was shot and directed by Shackleton, and I think the reader can assume that he produced it, but the body doesn't have any information about him writing the work, and since it is a silent film about paint drying, is there actually a writer?)
  • "indicating "no material likely to offend or harm"." Since you are quoting the BBFC, I think this needs a citation.
  • WP:V policy says, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." MOS:LEDECITE, a guideline, says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Even though this is in the lede, I would still highly support a citation for the direct quote. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait. Replies above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I support. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Lead & IB
  • Technically the Country field isn't supported by the text – you could add
  • The film is listed by the BBFC and the BFI as being directed by Charlie Lyne, not Charlie Shackleton. The guidance at Template:Infobox film says "Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made"
  • I would go with the policy and use Lyne, then deal with it in the lead and body (ie. The lead can read produced and directed by Charlie Shackleton (under his former name Charlie Lyne), and have more or less the same explanation in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBFC listing states the genre as "Documentary", which could be added
  • "hours worth" should be "hours' worth" (I see the same phrase is repeated elsewhere in the article)
Synopsis
  • "actually dries at the end of Paint Drying": you can replace the name with "the film" to stop it repeating. You can start the next sentence as "It".
Background and conception
  • "Shackleton has written": "He", rather than renaming
  • "censorship in the United Kingdom": shortened to UK
Filming, editing
  • Three more examples of United Kingdom that should be shortened to UK
Reception
  • "he stated on 25 January that": probably best to add the year as this is at the beginning of a section
Post-release
  • "a magazine published by Delhi Press": do we need to know this? I wouldn't expect to see the publisher shown in the sources, let alone the body
  • "dubbed": that's slang and should be replaced

I hope these are useful. All that, and I bet the BBFC watched it on fast forward... – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: They are very useful! Replies above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 10:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good. Short for a film article, but there's not anything more I thing could or should be added - it's probably going to be the only film FA without a plot section and cast list! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • What makes Lagier a high-quality reliable source for what it's being cited for?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Be consistent in how you cite works with no named author or no provided publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I have addressed your latter two concerns; fixed the formatting for no named authors or publication dates and I decided to remove the publisher parameters from all citations for brevity—coupled with the archive URLs the citations were honestly really lengthy. As for Lagier, I could have sworn I read somewhere that he had a PhD in media studies, which I believe would make him a subject matter expert in this context (relating to a film). However, I cannot seem to find the source now; if I still cannot find it, I will replace the citations for Lagier with alternative RS sourcing. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have removed Lagier. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

This seems well on its way but having heard of the subject I couldn't resist sticking my oar in.

  • Do we really need four adjectives between "2016" and "film"? It's quite a common trait of Wikipedia articles to try to cram lots of information into the opening sentence but I think it hampers readability. If I came to the article cold, I have to read a date, a nationality (another thing WP articles tend to shoehorn into the first sentence, regardless of relevance), and three more adjectives before I learn what the subject is, which might determine whether I want to read the rest of the article or not.
  • Probably not. For film-related articles, most are generally structured this way; only when there are two or more nationalities is this not mentioned here. I agree three genres is a lot, so I have removed "independent" as less important. IMO "experimental protest" explains the film well enough. I reckon shortening it to just "protest" would not be as descriptive as Paint Drying is not a film film but rather an experimental work. Thoughts? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shackleton's name change isn't relevant in the lead (which is supposed to be an executive summary of the film); suggest either piping the link or just using the new name.
  • It was made as a protest Use active voice wherever possible.
  • sometimes prohibitive cost "sometimes prohibitive" needs a hyphen because you're using it as a compound adjective
  • mandatory classification requirement imposes "imposes a mandatory requirement" is a lot of ways to say the same thing
  • the English-language expression since this is the English-language Wikipedia and the expression is written in English, we can infer that it's English unless otherwise specified
  • The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), a non-governmental organisation, I'm guessing you took this from the article on the BBFC but the linked article mostly discusses NGOs in the sense of non-profits like aid agencies; in this sense the meaning is closer to Quango. I'd be tempted to remove the description and just stick with its remit as nomenclature of official bodies is a bit of a minefield.
  • a decade that began when I was 13 years old" You need a reference immediately after a quote. Ditto "reduce the sense of sadistic pleasure in inflicting violence
  • due to the cost being too high → either "due to the cost" or "because the cost was too high"
  • He finally conceived the idea to make a film "finally" is arguably editorialising; suggest dropping it
  • however was surprised that there was no such resolution "however" is a word to watch. It's doing nothing for you here; suggest replacing with "but". And what do you mean by resolution? As written, the article says he was expecting conflict but saw no resolution, which doesn't quite make sense.
  • He stated that the funds raised would be put towards the cost of the age classification If this isn't in doubt, you can lose the slightly weasel-y "he stated" (you need attribution like that for opinions and quotes but not normally for undisputed statements of fact even when they come from a primary source)
  • towards the cost of the age classification, with the final length of the film being Don't use "with" to connect two clauses like that. For two closely connected facts like this, just the comma is sufficient; for more distant connections or where the change of tense the "with" forces is undesirable, it's better to use a semicolon or split the sentence.
  • Shackleton told the Daily Telegraph that he hoped that crowdfunding capital T, as the definite article is part of the name.
  • over two consecutive days, with the majority being viewed on 25 January same issue with "with" as above
  • "14-hour director's cut is presumably forthcoming" needs a ref
  • Is there anything relevant to say about what Shackleton has done since? Or on his opinions more broadly? There might not be sources for it, but I'd be curious to know whether he objects to film classification in general or just the way the BBFC does it.
  • Why is the one "further reading" not cited as a reference?
  • There are better sources available to cite that IMO give a more critical and analytical view on his opinions. In any case, I actually found this citation quite late into writing Paint Drying so everything in it was already mentioned in the article and cited by these more critical sources. Going through the source again, there is nothing to be added from it. The first paragraph is a brief overview of the film; paragraphs two and three talk about the Fight Club censorship stuff—already in the article and cited—four gives a history of the BBFC (not all that relevant IMO); five and six further criticises every aspect of the BBFC and Shackleton mentions other examples of banned films; six is the "Helter Skelter" murder quote already cited etc. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance of somebody else's YouTube video of drying paint?
  • Have any other protest films been submitted to the BFC? Have there been any comparisons between them and Paint Drying?
  • Did the BBFC defend itself against the protest other than the quote about reviewing it like any other film?
  • They did give a statement to some news agency, but it was removed by me on the recommendation of the GA reviewer as generic corporate speak that barely talks about the film itself, to which I agreed. You can see it here under "Classification, release and reception" (as the section was then known). Am interested in hearing your thoughts. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 12:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could distil that down to a couple of sentences, eg: "With regards to the motives behind making the film [...] the BBFC was set up in 1912 by the film industry itself, as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally. The BBFC is a non-profit organisation that works to protect children, from content which might raise harm risks and to empower the public, especially parents, to make informed viewing choices." And maybe add separately the bit about its only income being from the charges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I appreciate the review! Responses above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all the genres etc being mentioned, I just don't think we should shoehorn them all into the first sentence. Removing one of the adjectives is definitely an improvement. You're still using passive in at least a couple of places where active voice would be better (It was made in protest, It was rated 15). I'm not sure "altercation" is the right word; it makes think of a fist fight rather than an academic disagreement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these should hopefully be fixed, although I am unsure about the genres. I actually agree with your concerns but looking at other film FAs they have similar layouts as this. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor edits but I think we're good to go now. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 23 March 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) 23 March 2023 [33].

Edgar, King of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. Edgar was an important and fascinating figure, but not an attractive one. The article has received a helpful peer review from Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

It's about time! Review to follow over the next week or so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May the gods have mercy on whoever is performing the source review... Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succeeded by his younger brother Eadred, who died in 955. Edgar's older brother, Eadwig then became king and in 957" This narrative of events does not flow smoothly.
Maybe try: "succeeded by his younger brother Eadred, who ruled until his own death in 955. Edgar's older brother, Eadwig then became king; in 957..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the first part to "who ruled until his death in 955". Does that work? I do not like the semicolon in the next sentence. It is easy to miss it and read "Eadwig then became king in 957". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is okay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edgar mainly followed the political policies of his predecessors, whereas there were major changes in the religious sphere and the English Benedictine Reform, which he strongly supported, became a dominant religious and social force" The grammar in this sentence is messy; I suggest splitting it to say: Edgar mainly followed the political policies of his predecessors, but there were major changes in the religious sphere. The English Benedictine Reform, which he strongly supported, became a dominant religious and social force.
  • "Some give him high praise" is not necessary in my mind because the previous sentence already discussed the reasons why modern historians praise him. The last sentence of the lede could probably be combined with the penultimate one somehow.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edgar is described by the historian Ann Williams as "an enigmatic figure" due to the very limited information available on him,[2] while Barbara Yorke describes his personality as "elusive": "While" suggests differing opinions, but Williams and Yorke seem to be saying similar things.
  • "By 883, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, had accepted Alfred's overlordship..." Why is there a comma after "Mercians"?
  • It seems to me correct. It could be "Æthelred had accepted Alfred's overlordship" and there should be a comma at the beginning and end of an inserted descriptive phrase. What does master grammarian Tim riley think?
  • I concur with Dudley. This is what is technically known as a non-restrictive (i.e. a describing) phrase, as opposed to a restrictive (defining one). The former need to be hedged in by commas so that an accurate restrictive phrase or clause does not become a gratuitously insulting non-restrictive one. The classic illustration is "Pilots who are reckless may not live long" as opposed to "Pilots, who are reckless, may not live long". Tim riley talk 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I interpreted the entire name and title as a singular proper noun. Apologies. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first take was thoroughly reasonable, and indeed I'm not at all sure whether I would put a second comma after a mention of, say, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, but though, as Dudley says, you could call Æthelred just Æthelred, you couldn't call the poet just Alfred, so I'm sure Dudley's punctuation is right. Tim riley talk 16:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the rest of England was under Viking rule." Would "remained" be an appropriate word to substitute "was"?
  • "and Æthelstan, ealdorman[a] of East Anglia; who was known as the Half-King..." This semicolon could be a comma.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Edgar gave her a ten-hide estate at Old Weston in Huntingdonshire as thanks": "in gratitude" could work here.
  • "too little is known about the background to be sure": change "sure" to "certain"? Sounds more professional to me.
  • she later alleged that she had been "despoiled of all her property" during his reign: Is this quote a statement from Eadgifu herself, or is it from a source describing the situation? If it was not Eadgifu who said this, then I believe some quote attribution is in order.
  • "In 957 the kingdom was divided" Which kingdom? It does not hurt to specify here.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a decision to divide the kingdom between the brothers" A decision made by whom? Leading government officials, powerfuk nobles, or the brothers themselves?
  • "Edgar's third marriage may have had political repercussions" What kind of repercussions? Negative ones? And repercussions on what/whom?
  • "Edgar was able to keep them under control, but this collapsed into open hostilities after his death": "this" is a little vague; perhaps "the conflict" or some other direct reference would be better.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ealdormen for areas south of the Thames do not attest after 970" Would it make sense to replace "for" with "in"?
  • "He ceased in 963" A little odd: sounds like he died. Can we try rewording this?
  • Who is who in File:Edgar in Regularis Concordia.jpg? The caption leaves this vague.

That's all I've got. An amazing effort, Dudley. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]

Not sure I can match Unlimitedlead's enthusiasm  ;) but count me in for a front-row seat! Cheers, SN54129 19:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • !possible to write a chronological account " - perhaps "reconstruct chronologically", but up to ye.
  • A map showing the political constituencies of ASE on the eve of Edgar's accession. We have plenty, and I could tweak any for precision if you think it's needed. It would fit the background section nicely.
  • Since you say that Edgar died in 955, it seems superfluous to point out that 980 is "after Edgar's death".
  • Repetition of 944, also unnecessary to emphasise his infancy. How about, "and he was born in 943 or 944, the year his mother died".
  • Styenes' quote needs an inline citation rather than just a footnote; useful though that is.
  • That is discussed above. A cite next to the quote would wrongly appear to cover the first part of the sentence, and if I added to the cites at the end of the sentence it would not be clear which one applied to the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that we should be attesting to the "correct"ness of the charters' dating in Wikivoice. You explain that there's a difference in dates, but not why the preference?
  • "but some question whether he married the first one and others the second" - shorten/tighten to "some question the others' legitimacy"?
  • Malmsebury quote needs referencing; in fact, at 39 words, it should probably be blockquoted per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
  • Ditto citing the "priapic" quote, and clarify who it is you are quoting: Yorke or the Concordia itself (I assume the former?).
  • The whole sentence is on Yorke's comments and I have given a citation at the end. Changed to "Yorke sees a provision in the Regularis Concordia[e] that monasteries were under the protection of the king and nunneries of the queen in order to avoid scandal as "a pointed reference to Edgar's priapic interest in nuns" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "competent but formulaic and derivative Latin" - absolutely, so sure you can link to Carolingian minuscule among the other detail...
  • I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, but the charters section does seem to drift away from Edgar occasionally.
  • "but if we are disposed" - Wikivoice! Or is this all part of the same Keynes quote?
  • I have added a second "that" to make clear that it is a summary of Keynes's view. "Keynes observes that it is no wonder that Edgar was hailed as "the strongest of all kings", but that if we are disposed to admire the peace he brought then we should bear in mind the measures he took to enforce it." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency between e.g. bishop/Bishop required) I think the MOS instructs recommends the latter.
  • Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, I think the reference should go at the introductory sentence rather than the quote itself.
  • Also, consistency as to whether you capitalise the initial of the quote itself?
  • Wilson, immediate cite.
  • "Peter Rex observes in his biography of Edgar that his reign" - suggest "the reign" due to repetition of "his".
  • Cite "ill-deed" quote.
  • "several battles fought by ealdormen and neighbouring kings" does intimate some external opposition, surely, since the earldormen were in locum for the King?
  • "although [was] presumably weakened by" - the tense is asking for a tweak, I think?
  • In the interest of a gorefest, how was Edward murdered?
  • He was stabbed when visiting his half-brother. Some blame his step-mother, others persons unknown. Personally I think that historians have got it wrong and he was killed with general approval because he was a dangerous lunatic, but of course I cannot say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "view of Martin Ryan: "By the end of..."" or "Edgar was personally responsible: "this period, far more""? Think there are a few others earlier on too.
  • Ref ""singularly devoid of recorded incident"".
  • Ben Snook can lose the Ben second time around
That's me DM. Nice article, casting further light on the 'dark ages'  :) Thanks! SN54129 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, for the future, pings only work to user pages—not talk pages—so I didn't get this one. But the bulk of what I've suggested to DM has been actioned, and what remains is pretty insubstantial. I'm still working on a map, but it'll be derivative of all the others on commons, so nothing to keep Buidhe awake at night. In any case, I'll ping an image reviewer out of courtesy, but in the meantime, it shouldn't hold up this otherwise fine piece of work, and we can continue discussing the map(s) on the talk page. As such, I support this article's promotion to featured article status. SN54129 12:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, this is what we get for having a big name and a little name, I wanted to copy the big one for the link and then pipe to the abbreviated one but of course I copied the talk long name not the user long name by accident... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
  • Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historians disagree whether this was the result of a revolt by Edgar's supporters against Eadwig's incompetent rule or a previously agreed division. suggest Historians disagree whether this division was the result of a revolt by Edgar's supporters against Eadwig's incompetent rule or was previously agreed upon.
  • and as his sons Eadwig and Edgar were young children the phrase young children actually seems less specific than the lede's infants? Suggest changing the body to infants.
  • Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled Erik Bloodaxe in 954 assuming Erik Bloodaxe was the aforementioned Viking king, as he seems to be suggest Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, Erik Bloodaxe, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled them in 954
  • This is very complicated and historians do not agree on the sequence of events, but it is generally thought that Erik was not the first king, and that he took power later. I do not think it is relevant enough to go into detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was known as the Half-King because it was believed that kings depended on his advice. should the Half-King be in quotes as "the Half-King"
  • ten-hide estate at Old Weston in Huntingdonshire in gratitude suggest a short gloss for ten-hide

Image review

[edit]

Licensing fixed on one of the images. Please ensure that you don't accidentally pick a different license for works that you didn't create. Otherwise, the licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Joining the queue to review, but will wait my turn till the two ahead of me have had their say. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 14:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent idea to join in after everyone else has done all the hard work. These are my meagre gleanings, and are far too inconsequential to affect my support in the least:

  • Sources
  • "Edgar is described by the historian Ann Williams as 'an enigmatic figure' due to the very limited …" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally accepted. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. There's another "due to" at the start of the Charter section that could do with a tweak (plus two other "due to"s elsewhere that are perfectly all right).
  • Early life
  • "of the reform circle, in particular with St Dunstan" – the two prepositions "of" and "with" seem to clash with each other a bit.
  • Edgar in Eadwig's early reign, 955 to 957
  • "Frank Stenton, in his 'magisterial and massively authoritative' volume" – I think you might say inline who gave it that seal of approval.
  1. ^ The description of Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England is by the historian Simon Keynes.[1]
  1. ^ a b Keynes 2003a, p. xxi.
  • King of Mercia, 957 to 959
  • "Oda forced Eadwig to divorce his wife Ælfgifu" – we last met Oda 1,100 words and three sections ago, and I had to scroll back to remind myself who he was. You might perhaps call him Archbishop Oda here, or in some other way give the reader a memory jogger.
  • Consorts and children
  • "this was forbidden so long as the spouse lived, so Edgar's third marriage may have had political repercussions" – repetition of "so" (and there are old codgers like me who have yet to accept "so" as a conjunction in formal prose). I suggest replacing the second "so" with "and".
  • "the first West Saxon queen to do so on a regular basis" – two things here: first, I'm not sure what "on a regular basis" has got that "regularly" hasn't, and secondly was it really regular – at short uniform intervals – or merely frequent?
  • Frequently would be more accurate then on a regular basis, but it is not what the source says. She attested around a quarter of surviving charters and was the first West Saxon queen to do so more than once (excluding attestations as queen mother) since Judith of Flanders in the 850s. I am inclined to keep the wording on the ground that correcting it is a bit OR. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion
  • "Ælfsige, froze to death in the Alps on the way to get his pallium" – for those unfamiliar with the conferment of palliums (pallia?) on archbishops it might make this sentence more readily understandable if you expanded it on the lines of "froze to death in the Alps on the way to Rome to receive his pallium from the Pope".
  • "along Continental lines" – score Dudley 1, Tim 0 here. I thought Continental and the Continent were uncapitalised, but the OED and Chambers are squarely behind you. I must keep this in mind for future reference.
  • "In 970 Æthelwold re-founded the community" but later in the para "founded or refounded in 967" – the OED does not hyphenate the word.
  • Learning and art
  • Lapidge comments that his reign "marks a decisive turning-point in English literary history." But elsewhere you generally put the full stop after the closing quotation mark: However, Simon Keynes comments: "whether Eadwig and Edgar were able to assert their own independence of action, or remained at the mercy of established interests at court, is unclear". The second is, if I understand it correctly, the preferred form according to the MoS, and in your text it outnumbers the first by over 100 to 16.

That's my lot. The article is thorough without being verbose, evidently balanced, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated and a good read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ..., who may have been king only of Mercia at first, but ruled the whole of his father's realm by the next year" Is this relevant in the article's context?
  • It is relevant to the argument put forward by some historians that the unity of England was so new that the division between Eadwig ruling Wessex and Edgar ruling Mercia would not have been seen by contemporaries as shocking, and may have been agreed rather than a result of a rebellion againt Eadwig. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • ...the ætheling (prince eligible for the throne) was profoundly influenced by his upbringing I am not sure that it is clear for everybody that Edgar is the ætheling.
  • ...secular minster... I would delete "secular" and link "minster". Alternatively, I would say "the minster controlled by secular clergy".
  • Neither suggestion quite works. Deleting secular loses the point that royal patronage was not exclusively to monks, and "controlled by" might wrongly imply that there were also less powerful monks there. I have changed to "[[Secular clergy|secular]] (non-monastic) [[Minster (church)|minster]]. Does that work? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another influence on Edgar was his grandmother, Eadgifu. Quite uninformative and possibly misleading: there must have been dozens of people who had influence on Edgar.
  • This is an awkward one. Looking again, the source says in his childhood. I do not think there is any evidence for it, but as historians emphasise Eadgifu's influence, I thought I should put it in. I have now deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eadwig and Edgar are not recorded in contemporary sources until 955, when they first attested charters, suggesting that they did not regularly attend court when they were young.[20] King Eadred never married, and his attitude towards the claims of his nephews is uncertain. Eadwig attested Eadred's charters as ætheling or cliton (Latin for prince), and while some give Edgar the same title, others show him as Eadwig's brother, which may imply a lower status. 1. I think some restructuring is needed: in the previous paragraph Eadwig is mentioned as a king. 2. In the section's first paragraph Edgar is referred to as ætheling while this paragraph implies that he did not bear this title.
  • This is another awkward one. The comment about Eadred's attitude does seem valid, but it is not quite what the source says, so I have deleted it. This leaves the comment about the princes not being mentioned in contemporary sources awkwardly at the end of the previous paragraph, but I do not see where else to put it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the sentence could be the first sentence of the paragraph.
  • Oda forced Eadwig to divorce his wife Ælfgifu on the ground that they were too closely related, but Edgar was on good terms with her when he became king. Is this relevant in the article's context?
  • Why is "b" a note, instead of a direct reference to Keynes' work?
  • A direct reference would appear also to cover the first part of the sentence which it is not relevant to. If I added it to the list of references at the end of the sentence, it would not be clear which was the source for the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...against the opposition of the church Why not Church?
  • She had two sons... Why not "They had two sons..."?
  • ...but it is uncertain whether this was on the king's instruction, which would indicate that he wished to cut Edward out of the succession, or was ordered by Bishop Æthelwold, who was a friend and ally of Ælfthryth Is this necessary? For me, it looks like a not too relevant PoV.

Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • After Edgar became king of the whole of England when Eadwig died on 1 October 959, his former tutor Æthelwold became one of the most powerful figures at court. Could you rephrase it, perhaps by splitting the sentence into two? It contains too many information.
  • ...following the expulsion of the Viking king of York, Erik Bloodaxe The information about the expulsion of Erik comes out of the blue. Some context could be added?
  • The context is in the background section. "Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he had recovered it by the end of his reign."
  • I would repeat that Erik was expelled by Eadred.
  • Changed to " Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled Erik Bloodaxe in 954." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osulf did not owe his power to southern English suppport... I would prefer a positive statement: "Osulf owed his power to ... and his power did not depend on southern English support."
  • ..., and when he died in the 960s... I would begin a new sentence.
  • Edgar tried to keep them under control... I understand he kept them under control.
  • ..., but this collapsed into open hostilities after his death I would mention this info in section "Death and aftermath".
  • ... this may be because Edgar chose to govern these areas through royal officials of lower status. Reeves may have been entrusted with duties which were previously carried out by ealdormen. I would shorten the text: "this may be because Edgar chose to govern these areas through royal officials of lower status such as reeves."
  • The gap was filled after his death by the appointment of three new southern ealdormen. I would mention this info in section "Death and aftermath".
  • Kingship was peripatetic. Was kingship peripatetic or the royal court itinerant? I would delete the sentence.
  • ...standard grants to religious houses or individuals, with a few unusual ones... What is the difference between a standard and an unusual grant? Perhaps grants of property could be described as standard grants?
  • Edgar used the titles king of the English and king of Britain in his charters... Did he always use both titles?
  • I would have changed "and" to "or".
  • Delink and italicize "Hundred Ordinance", italicize "I Edgar", "II and III Edgar", "Andover Code", "IV Edgar".
  • Sources differ on italicization, but the most authoritative, Wormald italicizes Hundred Ordinance but not II Edgar etc, so I have gone with that. I think it is best to link the first usage of hundred. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andover code" or "Andover Code"?
  • Link "hundreds".
  • Introduce Lantfred of Winchester.
  • A code of Cnut specifies similar punishments, and its author, Archbishop Wulfstan of York, stated that Cnut's legislation was based on the laws of Edgar. Wormald describes the punishments as "ghastly", and Keynes observes that it is no wonder that Edgar was hailed as "the strongest of all kings", but if we are disposed to admire the peace he brought then we should bear in mind the measures he took to enforce it. Cnut held up Edgar's legislation as the precedent to be followed, and declared in a proclamation of 1020 that everyone should "steadfastly observe the law of Edgar." ASC D states that in 1018 the Danes and the English reached an agreement "according to Edgar's law". In a letter from Cnut to his subjects in 1019/20 he referred to a law code agreed at Oxford, which he described as Edgar's law, and urged people to keep to it. In Wormald's view, Cnut considered that his regime was based on the Oxford agreement to keep to Edgar's law. However, the code bears little resemblance to Edgar's legislation, and the reference to him was probably symbolic as a revered lawmaker, rather than practical as a source. Edgar's legislation continued to be held in high regard after the Norman Conquest, and the twelfth-century historian Eadmer referred to the "holy laws" of "the most glorious king Edgar", although there is no evidence that he knew the codes. I think these sentences fit nicely to section "Death and aftermath".
  • ...nine are known for Edgar... Is this grammatical?
  • A penny was worth around half of what it had been a hundred years earlier. Is this necessary? If yes, some explanation is needed. Perhaps this info could be mentioned after the reference to the "gradual decline in the standard of coinage" in the same section.
  • ... it caused momentous changes in the church Why not "Church"?
  • He was a strong critic of secular clergy (canons)... Secular clergy in general or specifically canons? If the latter, link canons.
  • ...secular clergy had their place in the church Why not Church?
  • Italicize "King Edgar's Establishment of Monasteries" and delete the quotation marks.
  • ...unlike in England this was not a matter of political principle Are we sure? For me, the article does not suggest that the introduction of the Rule of St Benedict was a political principle in England. On the other hand, The introduction of the the Rule of St Benedict was ordered at a legislative assembly in the Carolingian Empire.
  • I think that political principle in England is supported, particularly in the fourth paragraph of the section. The comment is based on Patrick Wormald, who argues that the motive was religious on the Continent. That is beyond my knowlege, but the fact that the rule was ordered by a Carolingian legislative assembly does not mean that the motive was not religious. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but for me nothing suggests that the introduction of the Rule of St Benedict was a political principle in England.
  • Looking again, my wording is not quite right. Wormald says that it was the uniformity of practice rather than the Rule itself which was politically motivated. It may be better to make the comment a quote. "The reform was the English branch of a European movement,[169] with monasteries which universally followed the Regula S. Benedicti, but Wormald comments that "England was the only place in post-Carolingian Europe where monastic uniformity was a matter of political principle". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is listed as a saint in some modern Catholic sources with a feast day of 8 July. Is catholicsaints.info a reliable source. If yes, also mention that he is venerated as Saint Edgar the Peaceful.

Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN122 is incomplete
  • What makes catholicsaints.info a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is a modern Catholic source and it is a popular source. I could replace it, but any other source for these particular statements would be open to the same objection. I could delete the statements, but both are ones that should be included in a comprehensive article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I can discover, there is no official list of Catholic saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not list Edgar, and I do not think that it is an RS anyway. He is listed in several unofficial Catholic lists of saints, and I think this is worth mentioning.
  • On the second issue, he is not listed as "the Peaceful" in the index of any of the books I have used as sources, and it is not considered an accurate epithet by modern historians. He just happens to have reigned in a lull between Viking invasions. It is a common epithet in popular books and websites.
  • My basic point is that these are both statements about popular usage, and popular sources are the best ones (and usually the only ones) on that subject, even though they are not reliable on other subjects. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted - sometimes you have "Oxford, UK" and other times just "Oxford", sometimes "Toronto, Canada" and other times "Toronto", etc.
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) 22 March 2023 [34].

Airport Central railway station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Transperth's newest stations (it opened on 9 October 2022) and my personal favourite design-wise. This would be my second featured article after Daglish railway station. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check needed

[edit]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article structure looks good to me I'd give it a pass for style guidelines but I'd see what other users think about it as well
Also definitely a pass 1d and e- the article appears to be stable and free from edit wars NotOrrio (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which are the longest operational escalators in the southern hemisphere at 35 metres (115 ft) long and 15 metres (49 ft) high; although they will" - semi colon should be a comma
  • "On the southern wall is a large glass panel consisting of 50 panels" - any way to avoid repetition of "panel"?
  • "the significance of the Swan River and the Whadjuk country to Noongar people" => "the significance of the Swan River and the Whadjuk country to the Noongar people"
  • Image captions which are complete sentences do not need full stops
  • "Rita Saffioti announced the opening date of the project had been delayed from 2020 to 2021" => "Rita Saffioti announced that the opening date of the project had been delayed from 2020 to 2021"
  • "saying it will open some time later in the year." => "saying it would open some time later in the year."
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done. Steelkamp (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • Is security needed to go from the airport to the station (or vice versa), or is it all landside? I presume airport security is not a factor in boarding/alighting the station itself, but I just wanted to make sure.

Otherwise good work; image review has already been passed, and while this does not count as a proper source review I see nothing alarming in citations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The station is all landside. In fact, the Skybridge doesn't actually enter the airport building, it instead stops a few metres short and passengers have to walk outside. I suppose that made construction easier. Steelkamp (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, so it is. Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to come do a source review here, but I'm concerned that the vast majority of the sources in use are not independent. Can you elaborate on your approach to sourcing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've added some new independent sources where I could. The reason there is a large number of non independent sources in the history section is because the Forrestfield–Airport Link website provided the most detail on the construction process at the highest frequency. It provided construction updates every few months. For the most part, the news media only covered the signing of contracts, the start of construction, and any construction delays.
As for the services section, that is mostly non independent sources because independent sources generally don't cover that. The only potentially flattering thing there is the "no surcharge" bit, which does have an independent source. The only bit of negative coverage I could find for the services is [35], which I've added.
As for the description section, again, independent sources don't typically cover that sort of thing. I do have independent sources for the "longest operational escalators in the southern hemisphere" bit though. Steelkamp (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Platforms - 2 platform edges with 1 island platform". What is a "platform edge? How many platforms does the island platform have? I assume 2, but it would be nice to be told. Or do you mean '1 island platform with 2 platform edges'?
    • Reworded it as suggested.
  • "construction of the rest of the station started after that." Consider 'construction of the rest of the station then started.'
    • Done.
  • "It is served by trains every twelve minutes during peak hour". Should that be 'peak hours'?
    • Both seem to be correct based on the Wikipedia article for rush hour and this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. Never mind, I've done away with the issue by replacing "peak hour" with "peak".
  • "The journey to Perth station takes eighteen minutes." Perhaps expand to include how far this is? And in the main article.
    • I can't seem to find a source which says the distance to Perth. The source I used for other articles (page 13) only gives the distance of Airport Central station from the Midland line (6.2 km).
  • "On the concourse are fare gates and utilities." In this context, what is a utility.
    • Well I originally had it as "toilets, and a staff office" but I changed it following a comment from the good article reviewer. Look at the source, it doesn't actually say there is a staff office there but it does for the toilets so I've changed that.
  • "Noongar" is mentioned twice. Who are they?
    • Added an explanatory footnote.
  • "to arrive at Airport Central station in late-February and late-March 2018 respectively"> You don't need "respectively".
    • Removed.
  • "Airport Central station". Why the lower-case initial s? Ditto Perth station, Claremont station etc.
    • For consistency with the page title and for compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Official sources all seem to capitalise "station" but independent sources are mixed as to whether they capitalise "station" or not. I remove the "railway" mainly to be concise, but also because not many sources actually include that. I would prefer if the page title were changes but I know that is a requested move I will not win as established convention for Australian stations on Wikipedia is to include "railway".
If you were being consistent with the article title you would include "railway" in each station title. The MoS - "Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements" - seems pretty clear. I fail to see how it can be read such that Perth station complies. (Short of arguing that Perth station is not a "place".) (Or Airport Central railway station.) I am obviously open to discussion and persuasion re interpretation, but I note that even within the article "Airport Central Station" has an upper-case S.
When capitalised the way the title is now, the only part of the name that is a proper noun is "Airport Central", and the "railway station" bit is merely a description, which can be shortened to "station" when the context is clear, such as within this article. Apart from the titles of references and the initial mention of the official name in the lead, the article is consistent with using lowercase "station" and it would require an RM to change that.
  • "Transport Minister Rita Saffioti". Is that a regional or national minister?
    • State minister, which I've clarified.
  • "every twelve minutes during peak hour on weekdays". Just checking, they stop every 12 minutes for a single hour, five days a week - yes?
    • Peak hour goes for longer than a literal hour, but despite that, peak hour without the s seems to be correct as per previous comment about this. I've done away with the issue by replacing "peak hour" with "peak".
  • "At night, trains are half-hourly or hourly. The first train arrives at the station at 5:30 am on weekdays". There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • I've tried to add that services end by 2 am on weekends. Hopefully my wording is fine. Its difficult to write though because the last train is later on Friday and Saturday nights and the first train is earlier on weekdays compared to weekends. Additionally trains heading towards High Wycombe end later than trains heading towards Perth/Claremont. I don't like to mention specific times as they will change when the timetable changes every few years, but I did mention the first weekday train at 5:30 as a secondary source specifically mentions that time.
I agree re not generally mentioning specific times, but also like the mention of a specific time in the discussion of the specific dispute. How about 'The last train leaves at about 2 am with the next train arriving approximately three to four hours later – 5:30 am on weekdays in 2022 – which has been criticised ...'?
Sounds good, I have reworded as suggested.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review :) Steelkamp (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have I adequately addressed your comments and do you have anything further to add? Steelkamp (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Do you have any other comments? Steelkamp (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pause. This is a nice little article and I am happy with everything bar the non-capitalisation of S/station. I have been trying to research any explanation as to why this, apparently, frequently ignores the MoS, but not really getting anywhere. Do you know of an RfC or similar where this is discussed and/or agreed? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations), which is not a policy or guideline but is universally followed. Relevant discussions include Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 8 November 2021 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 12#Station article titles. That first discussion is about lines rather than stations, but the arguments for and against are similar. Steelkamp (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Thank you. I am deeply unhappy about this, but shall support nonetheless. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • The archive link for FN 14 doesn't work for me -- I get "failed to load PDF document".
    • I see. I've changed the archive url.
  • Suggest adding "url-access=subscription" to FN 44.
    • Added url-access=limited for WAtoday refs. It requires a subscription after a certain amount of visits. I always forget that website is paywalled as I have blocked that website's cookies,

Spotchecks:

  • FNs 23 and 24 cite "During this, several archaeological discoveries were made, including a headstone from the 1890s." Verified, but this relies on "pieces of broken dinnerware and bottles dating from the 1950s" being considered to be archaeological discoveries, which while technically true is not what a reader thinks of when seeing the phrase. I would suggest cutting this to just "During this time a headstone from the 1890s was discovered" and dropping the other cite.
    • Reworded as suggested.
  • FN 1 cites "Under the Perth Airport master plan, terminals three and four near Redcliffe station will be replaced by new terminals in the Airport Central precinct." Can you point me at the text that supports this? The citation gives three pages that clearly are relevant but I can't spot fully supporting text.
    • On page 123:
    • "After 2025, when all regular passenger transport services consolidate in the Central Terminal precinct, ..."
    • "With the future consolidation of terminals to the Airport Central Precinct by 2025, ..."
  • FN 32 cites "This also caused the second TBM, Sandy, to stop on 28 March." Technically this is correct, but what the source is saying is that the second machine stopped because it came closer to the first machine than best practices dictate. This was because of the ground disturbance, so it's not wrong as you have it, but since Sandy didn't encounter the ground disturbance I would suggest rephrasing.
    • Added some text to clarify.
  • FN 7 cites "although they will be overtaken by 45-metre (148 ft) escalators at Sydney Central station in 2024". Verified.
  • FNs 59 & 60 cite "Following the state budget on 12 May 2022, the government changed its position on the line's opening date, saying it would open some time later in the year." Verified.
  • FN 29 cites "Excavation was completed in January 2018 and construction of the concrete base slab commenced the following month." Verified.

One request for the text above, and two suggested changes, neither of which I regard as a problem with the spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. Steelkamp (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for both the source review and the spot check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, can I just double-check that you're quite satisfied with reliability/quality of sourcing, viz. Nikki's and Steelkamp's earlier discussion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's OK. I didn't see the non-independent sources used for anything non-neutral -- for example this, which mentions "a cheering crowd of excited team members", is only used to support the length and installation date of the escalators. The other concern would be if the article included material that is not notable enough for inclusion, by using what could be considered a primary source, but the material covered seems to me to be in line with what I see covered in other transit station articles -- a lot of this sort of content gets covered in third-party sources in the articles coming through FAC on Singapore MRT stations, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, tks Mike. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Do I need another prose review or are the ones I've already got enough? I've got four and I assumed that only the first one wouldn't count, but I would understand if I need more. Steelkamp (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're okay, the nom has been open a month and has had experienced eyes on it; naturally I've given it the once-over myself as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 22 March 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 March 2023 [36].

Constantine (son of Theophilos)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just embarrassing. I've made my home at FA and have been here for almost half a year now, and I only learned today that the two-week wait period does not apply to successful promotions. One of my nominations was close recently, and as I do not wish to created a huge backlog at FA, here is a short article about a Byzantine prince. I've returned to my roots and have decided to nominate an article about a dead child. Have fun reviewing! Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: as the GA reviewer, would you care to follow this nomination and offer your thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not sure if I am the right person for that, as I've no FAs nor have I ever followed how the process looks like. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is quite alright. Thank you for your GA review, and I'll see you around. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 It turns out that over the course of the FA process, this article has gained some more words, meaning Si Ronda will still be the shortest FA by 9 words! Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Chris

[edit]
  • If it is known that he was born sometime in the 830s, then there's no need to be as vague as "c.830s" for his reign
What do you suggest instead?
If we know he was born in the 830s, then just replace both instances of "c.830s" in the lead with "830s". To me, "c.830s" implies a broad range which could fall outside the decade, which clearly isn't the case here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Fixed.
Side note: I only changed that for Constantine's reign. As with his birth, technically it could fall outside the 330s depending on which source you use.
  • "Unusually, Constantine was not named after Michael II" - need more context to explain why this was unusual
Done.
  • "As Theophilos succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829" => "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829"
Done.
  • "suggesting a birth date of 831 at earliest" => "suggesting a birth date of 831 at the earliest"
Done.
@ChrisTheDude: all done, except for the first one, which I have a query about. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Fixed.
@ChrisTheDude: Okay, now I think everything is done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria Is {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} accaptable for these purposes? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, coins are considered 3D. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: {{PD-old-100-1923}}, then? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Most information about Constantine's short life and titular reign remains unclear". I'm not sure about "remains", why not 'is'?
Done.
  • "it is known that he was born sometime in the 830s". If this is "known", then you don't need the "c." at the start of the lead.
While he was probably born in the 830s, some, like Ralph-Johannes Lilie give a possible date of the 820s.
In which case it is not "known that he was born sometime in the 830s".
  • "would continue the iconoclastic policies". Optional: insert 'religious' after "iconoclastic", to give a reader a handle on what, broadly, is being referred to without having to chase the link.
Done.
  • "still not a formal title". Delete "still".
Done.
  • "Herrin agrees with this birth date as well." As well as whom?
With Lynda Garland, as stated in the previous sentence.
Er, Herrin agrees with Garland - fine. "as well" indicates that they agree as well as someone else - ie, that at least two people agree with Garland.
  • "though this could mean he was only raised to co-emperor in 833." I am unsure why you use "though".
Removed.

A little gem. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done or replied to. Thanks for reviewing, Gog! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is nice and short we can check everything in even more detail than usual. Looking at special:permanentlink/1143707534.
  • Sources are all high quality, some secondary and some tertiary. The ODB is used for background content only, nothing to complain here at all.
  • Ref 1: In the text (at use "c"), this is credited to Lilie. At the source, it is credited to "Ralph-Johannes Lilie , Claudia Ludwig , Beate Zielke and Thomas Pratsch"; do you have a good reason not to cite this as {{sfn|Lilie|Ludwig|Zielke|Pratsch|2013}}? If you don't cite it by name, have you considered abbreviating as "PMBZ Online" as they do? As for the content, at the first mention the source is slightly less certain about suggesting he is the firstborn ("could have been the firstborn or—with some probability, not a certainty—at the latest the fourth child"). They are also slightly hesitant about the drowning in a cistern, so perhaps that shouldn't be in the lead without qualification.
I have addressed this under Harrias's comments. For reference, I said: "Changed to: In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), its authors, including the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie, state that... Constantine's saddened father constructed gardens on the spot of his son's death,[1] although the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit points out that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor, not Constantine." I thought I'd specifically mention Lilie because she is the only author to have a Wikipedia article that readers can skim really quickly, establishing her ethos as a credible Byzantinist." In regards to the citation, I am using the {{Sfn|Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit}} template.
Lilie is a he :) I still don't quite get why do you not cite the authors by name in your short footnote. It is not as terrible here as in the ODB, as the entire book seems credited to these four authors. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arg, I was thinking of Judith Herrin :) I am keeping consistency with the citations in Thekla (daughter of Theophilos). If you feel strongly about this, I can try and change it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there remains a possibility that he was their fourth" is still a slightly imprecise rendering. What the source says is that the latest possible place for Constantine in the sequence of siblings is the fourth place. Second or third child are also compatible with this statement. He was one of their first four children, likely the firstborn. —Kusma (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2: The ODB article is credited to a single author, Paul A. Hollingsworth. Should be credited here I think ({{sfn|Hollingsworth|1991}}). Content use is fine.
Is it alright to use the {{sfn|ODB}} template? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the template you use, but you have to mention the name of the author. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I am confused. Isn't the ODB by Alexander Kazhdan? At least that's what the source template says. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was the editor, but he did not write all of the individual entries, which have individual authors that should be credited. —Kusma (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: There are two ODBs here; which one is Hollingsworth? Both? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: the dynasties are by Hollingsworth (TWL) and "iconoclasm" by Hollingsworth and Cutler (TWL). See the bottom of the page (you need to log in to the Wikipedia Library). —Kusma (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Ah, I am not using the Wikipedia Library, which explains why I was confused. How should I cite two chapters of the same publication? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we have only two articles from the ODB, easily distinguished by the authors cited, I would personally use {{cite encyclopedia}} to produce
  • Hollingsworth, Paul A. (1991). Kazhdan, Alexander (ed.). Amorian or Phrygian Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Hollingsworth, Paul A.; Cutler, Anthony (1991). Kazhdan, Alexander (ed.). Iconoclasm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 975–976. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
and then refer to them as {{sfn|Hollingsworth|Cutler|1991}} and {{sfn|Hollingsworth|1991}}. I would use your construction only in cases where the authors are unknown (or very hard to find out). —Kusma (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3: first two uses should use page range 191–192 to include the full iconoclasm story and the birth year. Second two uses are indeed on p. 192 but the Thessalian marble at final use isn't in here as far as I can see (it is in the Prosopographie).
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the Thessalian marble? (If it is in that ref please tell me so I look again). —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I had included the PdmZ citation there. Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: again, we have named authors, Paul A. Hollingsworth and Anthony Cutler. Good summary.
See other inquiry above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5/6: fine. (Note that 5 covers the parenthesis only, and the link goes to the wrong page, but the correct page is available).
  • Ref 7/8/9: fine.
  • Ref 10: this is what Grierson says according to Treadgold. Would be nice to quote the original; unfortunately, that seems to be p. 407 of the Grierson cited as number 5, and unlike p. 406 it isn't on Google Books. Would be nice to check (via WP:RX if need be) and cite (additionally) the original.
Agreed. Do you see where number 5 is, because I do not, unfortunately. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean [37]? BTW the title is Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection; you should use the full title. And I've managed to access p. 407 by asking Google directly: [38]. If you can't see it, wikimail me and I'll send a screenshot. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, excellently sourced with only tiny issues that should be easy to amend except perhaps no. 10. I would suggest to footnote-cite the authors also for the ODB (splitting it up into two bibliographical entries) and the Prosopographie. I really enjoyed how the article made me discover some of the fascinating story of iconoclasm. —Kusma (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Kusma:. I have some replies to some of your inquiries. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I believe all comments have been addressed. Feel free to take a look to make sure everything is satisfactory. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're almost there. The final sentence has somehow lost its citation, though. A non-source related comment: shouldn't "religious iconoclastic policies" rather be "iconoclastic religious policies"? (I am not a native speaker, so if you say "no", I will accept that it is more natural in your ordering). —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Both fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This passes the source review now. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for this exhaustive review. Good grief, that was quite the experience for me! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • I would make it clear in the lead that he was an infant when he "ruled as co-emperor". Although the sources differ on when he may have been born and died, they seem to concur he died young (though I will come back to this with a later point), whereas reading the lead, which states he lived from the "820s or 830s" to "sometime before 836" could have him as old as 15.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead also presents as a fact that he died "after falling into a palace cistern", whereas the body caveats "that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor".
Clarified. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the addition of "Byzantine" before "Emperor Theophilos", I now think it would read better as "Constantine was born to the Byzantine Emperor Theophilos and.."
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coinage issued under Theophilos suggests that Constantine was their firstborn." Is it possible to be more explicitly about how it suggests this? I assume he is simply the first of their children to appear on coinage, but even so, the article would do well to make that clear.
Sources do not mention how the coinage implies this, only that it does. Quite strange. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually, Theophilos defied the standard conventions for the naming of Byzantine royalty, as his son was not named after Michael II" – Okay, but what is the convention? I've looked through the emperors that preceded him, and there isn't an obvious pattern I can find. Is it that the children were named after their grandfathers, or after the preceding Emperor? In this case they were clearly the same person, but it seems that wasn't always the case.
Source says: "While the male child should have been named Michael after his paternal grandfather, Theophilos breaks the rule and gives him the name Constantine..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this article, it states "but his parents first met in May 830 and married the following month", whereas in Thekla (daughter of Theophilos), which I also reviewed recently, it stated "depends on the year her parents married, estimated to be either c. 820/821, or 830". Technically, the internal consistency of Wikipedia isn't part of the Featured article criteria, but I'm concerned that this Featured article nomination is presenting as a fact something that is presented in a different Featured article as uncertain.
Removed. Apologies for the confusion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, now that I'm drawn to it, the article on Thekla states that "She is presented by contemporary sources as the eldest child of Byzantine emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora.." whereas this one states that the coinage suggests Constantine is the firstborn. This contradiction should be addressed in both articles, unless this article was only intended to state "firstborn son". Looking at Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, it states (via translation): "The son Constantine could either have been the first-born, especially according to the coins, or – with a certain probability, but not necessarily – at the latest the fourth child could have been born."
Oops. Firstborn son is what the PdmZ says; I thought I had said that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829, Constantine became heir to the throne.." This seems fine on a first read, but later we find out that Constantine might not actually have been born at this point, so the sentence doesn't really work.
Okay, so the wording here is odd. The article text (which I have slightly adjusted in an attempt to make the meaning clearer) reads: "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829, Constantine was heir to his father's throne and was crowned co-emperor a short time after his birth." In my mind, this does not assert a birth date for Constantine, only saying that because Theophilos was emperor by 829, Constantine was his father's heir. When was he the heir? Who knows? I tried to leave this sentence vague; please let me know if you still think there is something wrong with the wording. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He died shortly afterwards, still in his infancy." This is presenting his death in infancy as a fact, whereas "The British historian Philip Grierson used this evidence to support the claim that Constantine died young." offers more uncertainty.
I have moved the latter sentence to the former one and adjusted accordingly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, looking at it, the whole second paragraph feels too certain and out of place compared to the rest of the body. It almost reads like it should be the second paragraph of a lead, rather than the body.
May I ask why you feel this way? The first paragraph discusses his birth and family, the second one about the titles and coinage during his life (and briefly his coffin), and the third about disputed in modern academia. This flow seems acceptable to me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie states.." That sources lists the authors as "Ralph-Johannes Lilie , Claudia Ludwig , Beate Zielke and Thomas Pratsch", on what basis is the article only listing Ralph-Johannes Lilie?
Changed to: "In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), its authors, including the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie, state that... Constantine's saddened father constructed gardens on the spot of his son's death,[1] although the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit points out that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor, not Constantine." I thought I'd specifically mention Lilie because she is the only author to have a Wikipedia article that readers can skim really quickly, establishing her ethos as a credible Byzantinist. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article, a marvellous effort on such a small topic, but I do have some concerns regarding the internal (and external) consistency shown. I would flag this up with the @FAC coordinators: as needing a more in-depth source review than is perhaps usual for a non-first-time review, to check that the article is accurately reflecting the sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Harrias. Noted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: @Gog the Mild: I have offered some fixes and replies. My sincere apologies for all the confusion; Constantine's life is a big jumble of uncertainty that even historians are still squabling about :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for your continued work on this Unlimitedlead. As I said originally, I really enjoyed this article, and you've done great work on such a small and uncertain topic. Well done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:12, 16 March 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 March 2023 [39].

Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are vaguely aware that the Roman army left Britain around 400 (February 407) and never returned, ushering the Dark Ages into Britain. Have you ever wondered why? Or who ordered it? Or what happened to them, and why they never returned? Read on. I took this article to GAN in June 2018. (Six months before my first FAC.) I recently reread it and winced. So I have rewritten it, which turned out to take more work than I had anticipated. Hopefully the effort was worthwhile. Your views on this would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

You know I jump at the chance to review something from you, Gog. Leaving my place here; comments will follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "making his capital at Arles" Awkward prose: maybe replace "making" with "establishing"
Done.
MOS:OVERLINK states "... the following are usually not linked ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of ... countries".
  • "Meanwhile Constantine invaded northern Italy, but his plans misfired" Interesting: I've never heard the word "misfired" used in this way before. Would "backfired" work here instead?
No, backfire means something different. Happy to change, but having a bit of a mental block. Any other suggestions?
Nope, I was just confused at the meaning.
  • The word "withdrew" is repeated several times in the lead; try finding synonyms like "retreated".
Twice. One changed. I have also substituted one usage in the main article.
  • I have tweaked the infobox to make it easier on the eyes. Feel free to tweak it yourself or undo.
It looks good. Thanks.
Done.
Whoops. Done.
  • You don't need to, but I would insert a brief phrase to help the reader unserstand what (or rather, who) Niall of the Nine Hostages was. At first, I thought it was some kind of group, but then I hovered over the link and saw it was a person.
It's a Seattle grunge band. Done.
  • Slavery in ancient Rome might be an appropriate link to place somewhere in the area about the captives being sold as slaves. Then again, this could be considered a trivia link.
Not done, although happy to discuss further. I think most readers will know what a slave is.
  • Highly unlikely, but not every reader will immediately understand what "the continent" means. I would link it.
Done.
  • "and overrun the Roman defensive works" Wrong verb tense. Replace "overrun" with "overran".
Done.
  • Note four seems like it could be placed somewhere in the article's body. It is rather on the short side.
Done.
  • Is note five relevant in this article? It seems like what one might call a "fun fact".
Removed.
Seems Easter eggy to me. I mean, in what way is how the dye for the cloak was obtained relevant to the article?
  • MOS recommends not linking common locations, but I do not believe Tarragona is one of those common places. I suggest linking in order to spare readers the hassle of looking it up.
Done.
  • "He bears some relation to the Constantine" How so?
Who cares, this is summary style on a barely relevant piece of cultural trivia. I could change to "He has been associated with ..."?
Yes, that would work.
  • Why does the succession box at the bottom of the article not include the title of Roman Emperor?
I may not have grasped your point. Does this address it?
Yes.

I am pleased with this article. It involved all my favorite stuff: Rome, the Eastern Empire, Britain, and unecessary violence and death! Woo-hoo! There actually weren't that many instances where I felt the need to insert commas either. These comments are all I have for this article; I will be glad to support once they have been adressed. Great work as always, Gog. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead, yes, an all-against-all death match. How times have changed. Thanks for the review, all coments addressed, a couple with dissents or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Support this nomination. It was a delightful read. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Unlimitedlead, much appreciated. Re "misfire", how would you feel about 'but his plan failed and ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is okay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chris

[edit]
  • "An army under the Gerontius" - the Gerontius?
Bleh! The general Gerontius. Fixed.
  • "After concentrating his forces, Stilicho caught the Goths while besieging Florentia" - who was doing the besieging, Stilicho or the Goths?
Ah, good point. Added.
  • "including the Vandals, the Alans and the Sueves crossed the Rhine" - I'd be tempted to mention the Alans last to break up a slight sea of blue
Crafty. Done.
Thanks CtD, good spots one and all, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "The moved from Epirus" => "They moved from Epirus"
Done.
  • "But a rift between him and Honorius was obvious." - very brief sentence and starting it with "but" doesn't read brilliantly IMO, can it be merged with another sentence?
I think, in context, it reads fine.
  • "But Honorius continued to refuse to reach an agreement with Alaric." - similar to above

You have a problem with my starting sentences with "But"? Is that a BritEng thing? Amended.

  • "It also likely he was counting" => "It is also likely he was counting"
Done.
Thanks again ChrisTheDude, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
Lede
  • "He was co-emperor of the Roman Empire from 409 until 411." perhaps add "a legitimate" before co-emperor; to explain to a layman the distinction that he had now achieved recognition as emperor from the others.
I really don't want to go there. If he had overcome Honorius and ruled the west for a further 20 years, his "legitimacy" from 407 would be universally accepted. I have inserted "recognised as", that do? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me; just wanted a distinction that he was no longer seen as a random dude with an army. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • "were sold into slavery that the market in slaves collapsed" is somewhat awkward, I think it might be better as simply "were sold into slavery that the market collapsed"
I don't see that your suggestion is any less awkward (I don't find either awkward) but has the issue of leaving it unclear just what collapsed. "the market" is a different thing from "the market in slaves".
  • "the Gallic Roman Jovinus," should change Gallic Roman to Gallo-Roman (as this is a distinct culture he belonged to, rather than a Roman who merely lived in Gaul, as Gallic Roman implies) and link to Gallo-Roman culture.
Done.
  • Footnote 1 ( Constantine was a usurper against Emperor Honorius from 407–409.) should I think be removed or have a citation; I prefer removal as it's very superfluous to the lede.
Removed.
But of course. Comments tightening up the prose are most welcome. If I disagree, I'll say so; if I don't I'll copy them through to any other relevant articles. (Unless I forget.)
Thanks Iazyges, your comments all addressed above. Given your familiarity with the period, you fancy doing the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, and take on the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Will take this on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes, Ian (2010): Pen and Sword is not a great source; while Ian Hughes is applauded for being an easy-to-read historian, and is certainly among the best of the pop historians, he has also been noted as making a few mistakes that, to be honest, would not likely pass a more rigorous academic press' review. I would challenge the book, as a product of both him and Pen and Sword, as being an HQRS. Further, the text of the article reads "Stilicho sent orders and funds to strengthen the defences around Hadrian's Wall at about the same time" cited to Hughes, making no mention that Hughes himself qualifies the entire matter with the fact that Stilicho seems to have done it, and goes on to say the narrative is "unsupported except perhaps by archeology" (which is odd in the face of the fact that archeological support for the war is quite weak). The best source I could find to replace it is At the Gates of Rome: The Fall of the Eternal City, AD 410 by Don Hollway (can be found on Definitely-not-Libgen), page 175 says: "Stilicho put Rome’s money – Gildo’s money – to good use. He sent a large part of it to Britannia, to recruit more troops and rebuild and strengthen Hadrian’s Wall and the coastal forts."
    {{cite book |last1=Hollway |first1=Don |title=At the Gates of Rome The Fall of the Eternal City, AD 410 |date=2022 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=Oxford |isbn=9781472849960}}
Well, well. I have found Pen & Sword books to be pretty sound, but that is one editor's anecdotal view from a limited sample. This source certainly seems to be best avoided, and given my single cite to it I see no point in attempting to defend it - even if I were inclined to, which I am not. (That said, nonsense crops up in surprising places. I have just read Glantz's Before Stalingrad. Glantz is supposed to be the gold standard for the Eastern Front during WWII, but much of this reads like a so-so GAN. Ah well.) Thanks for spotting this and for spelling out the issue so clearly. Even more thanks for finding an alternate source and handing it to me on a plate. Text lightly edited and Hughes replaced with Holloway.
I tend to agree with you that Pen & Sword are usually sound; happy to defend it as just an RS for that reason, but too much slips through IMO for HQRS. Thanks for being so flexible, source review passes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, many thanks for taking this on and for spotting a subtle flaw which I had missed. Fixed as you suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite probably both ;-) but my brain was clearly on holiday. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Started reading, will comment tomorrow-ish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support anyway, but a few quibbles for your consideration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • had strengthened his army with barbarians— I think you say elsewhere that they are Germans of various kinds, which would be more specific
Done.
  • so many captives were sold into slavery that the market in slaves collapsed.—any way of avoiding slavery/slaves in the same sentence?
Ho hum. "into slavery" removed.
  • IustinianusMy Latin O level was many decades ago, but I thought that initial "I" was always written as "J" in English, like Justinian
I think I may have inherited that and not spotted it. Thanks. Corrected.
  • Constantine appointed him to the position of caesar (title) — the title is capped in its own article
No doubt by an editor who hasn't read the MoS, especially MOS:JOBTITLE. Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source.
  • himself at Saragossa— Zaragoza is how the town spells itself, and I think it's the prevalent form in English too
Umm. I have rarely come across it in English. While an Ngram - a blunt tool at best, but indicative - suggests that it has become prevalent recently, it does not seem to be overwhelmingly so. The sources don't help - they refer to Caesaraugusta.
  • Generalissimowill younger readers know this term? Does it need a link?
I hadn't realised how much its use had diminished in recent decades, linked.
That's all, great stuff
Thanks Jim. Despite having your support in the bank :-) , I would be grateful if you could skim my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the responses are fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead & IB
I am not seeing it. Which is probably another sign of encroaching senility. Could you help me out?
In the IB: Alongside Constans II (409-411) and Issue Constans II
Ah. Thank you. I took "listed" to mean something else. I have unlinked the second mention. Does that fix the issue?
Yes - something of a typo there - it should have been "linked". Looks good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Hispania Honorius's": I don't normally suggest extra commas, but I think one after Hispania will stop people wondering who Hispania Honorius was...
Hispania Honorius, co-consul alongside Biggus Dikkus; you have not heard of him. Comma inserted.
I know his wife...
Rise
  • Almannics: is there a link that could be used here?
Ah ha. Yes there is. Thank you. Done.
Co-emperor
  • "respecting the person of the Emperor": lower case e?
As it refers to a known specific individual, I don't think so.

That's it from me – nicely done article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SchroCat, good spots there; appreciated. Two done, one not done and one cry for help. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support My pleasure! The duplicate link in the IB will be sorted, I am sure, so moving to support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SC. Fixed, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Will do one after supper. Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Solidus of Constantine III (west).png - coin is PD and VRT for photograph - OK
File:Theodosius I's empire.png - own work w/ source - OK
File:Roman Gaul - AD 400.png - own work w/ source - OK
File:Siliqua Constantine III-RIC 1355.jpg - coin is PD and VRT for photograph - OK
File:Siliqua Constans II Arelate.jpg - ditto - OK
File:Gold Solidus of Constantine III, Lugdunum.jpg - public domain for coin, verified at source link that the photograph is freely license - OK
File:Solidus of Constantius III.png - public domain for coin and VRT for photograph - OK

Everything with the images looks to be in order, passing. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Greetings oh mighty ones. This humble supplicant, viewing their current offering and considering that all is estimable, craves the boon of being permitted to present a further oblation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Gog, Just when you thought... I've been watching this and have a few very minor comments...

Woo hoo! Welcome back Jenny. I reserve the right to change my mind about that once I have actually read your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
  • I think with the edit 12:17, 11 March 2023 you may have accidentally undone 2 previous edits (had older version open?). It relinked Roman Britain and also removed the clarifying comma from "In Hispania, Honorius's relatives" (though maybe it might be even better to say 'Honorius's relatives in Hispania rose...')?
Bleh! Good spot. Thanks.
  • The year 402 is the last date Roman coinage is found - last date from which Roman coinage is found?
Tweaked.
  • map caption The Eastern and Western Roman Empires at the death of Theodosius I in 395 - maybe swap order to Western and Eastern because west is on left (and the colours aren't mentioned)?
Done.
  • Constans is only an eggy link at "Constantine's oldest son. Would it be better to use the link at "gave him the imperial-sounding name of Constans"?
Ok.
  • the Visigoths were settled on land - and the Visigoths were...?
Done.
  • whereupon Constantius' son, assumed the throne - apostrophe s per other s's names
Done.
  • following Gracianus Municeps' reign - apos s

Done.

  • succession box - change Constans link from usurper to the son of dab again?
Done.

And that's all I have. JennyOz (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff, thank you Jenny. All done. Can I *cough* draw your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Great Plains/archive1? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, happy to s'port. So, back to Carthage? It's on my list. JennyOz (talk) 14:22, 16 March 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) 19 March 2023 [40].

John Manners (cricketer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): StickyWicket (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got this article to GA class in April 2020 and decided, with some time on my hands in the next few months, to see if it could reach FA status. I have previously listed this for a peer review, but had no input, but I did list it on the cricket project talk page for feedback, which was received and actioned. John Manners was a Royal Navy officer and first-class cricketer, most notable for being the oldest living first-class cricketer ever, until his death in 2020 aged 105. All told, his life was a fascinating one! Looking forward to hearing what comments people have. StickyWicket (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Hi StickyWicket, just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments Support from Chris

[edit]
  • "With his first-class career further interrupted by the war, Manners returned to first-class cricket in 1947" - maybe just say "With his career further interrupted by the war, Manners returned to first-class cricket in 1947" to avoid repetition?
  • "after securing a shore based position" => "after securing a shore-based position"
  • "thus narrowly falling short of becoming the first Hampshire batsman to make a century on their first-class debut" - was the miss really "narrow"? It's not like he scored 98 or 99.....
  • "Prior to the United Kingdom's declaration of war on Germany in September 1939, Manners had been saving his leave in order to have a full summer playing county cricket in 1940, but the subsequent declaration would mean it would be more than ten years before he played first-class cricket again" - this contradicts the lead, which says he played first class cricket in 1947, only eight years after war broke out.
  • "Manners was recalled back to Britain" => "Manners was recalled to Britain"
  • "Six months later, with Eglinton based at Harwich, Manner's and his wife" - shouldn't have an apostrophe in his name
  • "although unscathed, four other occupants of the house were killed" => "although they were unscathed, four other occupants of the house were killed" (existing wording indicated that the four people killed were also unscathed)
  • "a third depth-charge set to “deep”, which caused a prolonged explosion and brought more oil to the surface" - first part has no verb. Maybe reword to "a third depth-charge set to “deep” caused a prolonged explosion and brought more oil to the surface"
  • "where he received the German surrender there" => "where he received the German surrender" ("there" was redundant to "where")
  • "Manners entertained himself by playing in cricket matches against Sydney's leading public schools" - do we know who he played for? Currently it almost reads like he was playing "1 vs 11 matches"......
  • "in a first-class match apiece for each" => "in a first-class match apiece" (again "for each" is redundant to "apiece", which means the same thing)
  • "who Manners would visit each Christmas" => "whom Manners would visit each Christmas"
    • Done. 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

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) 14:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this to the talk pages of the MILHIST and cricket projects. Do you know of any FAC contributors who might be willing to add to the discussion? StickyWicket (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AssociateAffiliate, I appreciate that real life exists, but this has been open for six weeks and you have not responded to open comments for six days. If some of the outstanding queries are not resolved soon the nomination is liable to time out under "actionable objections have not been resolved". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed a few more points this evening. StickyWicket (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've addressed all these points now. StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

[edit]

I'm placing this here as a holder. I may not be able to make an in depth review before the weekend. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned that Yardley-Latham (2010) is a primary source written by the subject. It is slightly redeemed as having been edited by Yardley-Latham but the majority of the content is presumably in Manner's own words and with any associated bias. Are there any alternative sources that we can use either to replace Yardley-Latham or to insert as supporting citations? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, for someone who died so recently and was the holder of a notable longevity record, besides his long RN career, there isn't a great deal written about him that goes into detail about his life. Yardley-Latham (2010) seems to be the only one, and is of course a collection of his memoirs. Possibly some of his obituaries might be able to support the references from Yardley-Latham. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is likely to mean we either trim out the potentially contested statements supported by Yardley-Latham or this fails the FA nomination. I'll have a look through the statements later but the line about the court martial of the King George V lieutenant is a bit much to be supported by a primary source that may be speaking from rumour rather than fact. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the statement about the court-martial and the relieving of her commander, I am finding it difficult to find any official documentation. I presume by "commander" Manners' would have been speaking about an officer with the same rank as him, as her overall commanding officer remained in place throughout October 1945. I have searched in Trove for any headlines about it, but nothing thus far. StickyWicket (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns with several statements that are only supported by the Yardley-Latham primary source. Primary sources can only be used to support statements directly about the source of primary information. In other words, uncontroversial claims about Manners can be supported by Manners but not claims relating to wider subjects. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was reported at the time to have been the second largest unexploded German bomb to have been recovered during the Blitz." - that is quite a big claim and we should have a secondary source to support it. All we can really say at the moment is "Manners heard it was the second largest."
  • "In the same month, Eglinton was chosen to take part in Operation Lucid, a plan to use fire ships to attack German invasion barges in ports in German-occupied northern France, however while escorting an oil tanker to Boulogne the command ship HMS Hambledon struck a mine, resulting in the cancellation of the operation." - there should be secondary sources available that describe the operation.
  • "Manners served as a lieutenant aboard Eglinton until February 1942, after which he held a brief command aboard HMS Fame which was being repaired at Chatham. After a few weeks commanding Fame, Manners was sent to HMS Eskimo at Falmouth, after her first lieutenant had fallen overboard and drowned." - I'd expect some secondary source material for the drowning, at the very least.
    • I wonder if this might be Lieutenant Edward Peregrine Stuart Russell, who drowned in May 1942 whilst attempting to save a comrade aboard Eskimo? I'll see if I can do some digging, but do have a dissertation deadline to meet this coming week, so might take me a week or two to address these!!! StickyWicket (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a fortnight at the sheep station, Manners received a phonecall and was assigned to HMS King George V in October 1945, after her first lieutenant had been court-martialled and commander relieved of his duties." - we need a secondary source for the court martial and relieved of duty claims.
    • I have also removed the court-martial and relieving of duty claims, as I can't find anything to back it up on Trove and someone has checked books on the British Pacific Fleet and there was no mention; I'm guessing it just didn't merit press coverage. StickyWicket (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StickyWicket, have you addressed all of From Hill To Shore's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, will be slow business over the next week or so, I'm writing up my dissertation for my degree! StickyWicket (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore:. I've addressed your comments, hopefully sufficiently! :) StickyWicket (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. As all of the potentially challenged material supported by the primary source has been removed or a supporting secondary source added, I have no more concerns here. Changing to support. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • "however while escorting an oil tanker to Boulogne the operation command ship HMS Hambledon struck a mine" awkward, especially "operation command ship"
  • "Forming part of the Rosyth Escort Force as an anti-aircraft and anti-E-boat escort to convoys in the North Sea which were carrying supplies from the Firth of Forth to London, Viceroy was escorting a convoy on 11 April 1945, when the tanker SS Athelduke which was carrying 12,600 tonnes (27,800,000 lb) of molasses was hit by a torpedo from the German submarine U-1274 near the Farne Islands, causing two explosions to rock the ship" This is very long and could profitably be split. Use Imperial measurements, not metric, and don't convert them into pounds; use long or short tons instead.
  • "Realising the convoy was under attack from a U-boat, and that the water was too deep for mines" The clauses here seem to be reversed. The water being too deep for mines made the cause of the explosions a submarine's torpedoes.
  • How did returning to the sinking allow him to recover 12 bottles of brandy?
  • Change explosion for detonation
  • I am astonished at the glacial speed of his promotions, especially since his father was an admiral and he was a pre-war regular officer. 1 promotion in 21 years?!! I'd love to know the reason why, but I doubt that it will ever be known.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come back in about 25-50 years when the personnel files are opened. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buckshot06

[edit]

Assigning onboard King George V - I believe first lieutenant and commander may be the same officer. What do the sources say exactly? Also, that event needs to be added to HMS King George V (!). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, plus the big-boss commanding officer of the ship was Captain Brian Schofield, who was in post from April 1945 to September 1946, so he almost certainly wasn't talking about him! Reading more of his memoirs in Yardley-Latham (2010), it reads: "Her first lieutenant had been court-martialled for drunkenness and the commander had been relieved of his duties. The commander, one Dick White, was pulled out of his destroyer and had just joined. My duties were "mate of the upper deck", which roughly meant looking after the workforce, running the commanders' office, producing the daily orders, entertainment officer and any odd jobs nobody else wanted".
This event happened in Sydney, but having looked in Trove I can't see any mention of a court-martial in October (or September 1945) making the headlines. Are there any books dedicated to the history of the ship? StickyWicket (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. As I understand things from my work on the Hood article, the first lieutenant was a lieutenant-commander's job in a battleship, while the commander was the captain's executive officer in American parlance and had the rank of commander.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the one book dedicated to the KGVs and it's mostly focused on wartime activities and technical descriptions. No joy in Hobbs' history of the British Pacific Fleet either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so he wasn't talking about them in inclusive words, the first lieutenant (aka lieutenant-commander) and the commander had had a few too many and were relieved of their positions, with White replacing the commander and Manners the first lieutenant? Shame there's nothing which documents it besides his memoirs, I mean would it be a major controversy which would be newsworthy? StickyWicket (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Richard Nevell

[edit]

It's interesting to see a cricket biography at FAC, especially about someone with quite a colourful story. Writing a biography about someone who has passed away means the source material will largely be static which makes maintaining the article over the long-term easier than someone whose career is ongoing. A range of sources are used, but there are areas for improvement.

  • Could we have a source for Manners being a hard-hitting batter? It's mentioned in the lead without a reference but doesn't appear in the body.
  • In the infobox Manners' career span with Hampshire is given as 1936–1948. Perhaps 1936, 1947–1948 would be a more accurate reflection since it was not continuous.
    • I believe this was discussed some years ago on the cricket project (10 years at least) and it was decided to apply the same career span style as Cricinfo and CricketArchive, who use 2000–2010. It does bring up some curious spans, say as an example John Bloggs who played for Kent in 1886 and then the MCC in 1910! But as they are both authoritative sources, it was decided to mirror their method. It was 10 years ago now, so can always be re-raised with the cricket project. StickyWicket (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some conflicting information about brandy and the Athelduke. The vandwdestroyerassociation.org.uk source says the captain sent a single bottle to the First Sea Lord which was then sent to Churchill. The Wisden article also says one bottle was sent as a gift, but has it going from Manners to Churchill; it seems that might have simplified the situation.
    • Amended. It seems Manners and another officer recovered the brandy, which was handed in at port, from where a Captain Ruck-Keene sent a bottle to Churchill (in a casket made by the carpenter aboard Viceroy. He then wrote a letter of thanks to those involved. StickyWicket (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention anything between Manners' retirement from the navy in 1958 and becoming the oldest living first-class cricketer in 2014. At the very least I think it should include that he worked at Dauntsey's school for 18 years.
  • "strong Hampshire Club & Ground side": as this is a judgement and relative, it is perhaps worth quoting from the source.
  • "sufficiently impressed future Test Match Special commentator John Arlott": sufficient to what? It seems like this is leading to something, perhaps the quote about Manners' potential that crops up in a couple of places? It would be a shame not to use it as it is rather a good one.
  • Reference #13 (later ref #15) is to the catalogue entry for Manners' private papers at the Imperial War Museum. Is this because the catalogue entry itself is the reference, or were the archival materials consulted? If the latter, {{Cite archive}} would be more suitable.
    • I honestly have no idea what that was referencing, it was at the end of a cricket related sentence which doesn't match anything at the reference. So I have removed it, but still referenced his private papers later on. StickyWicket (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions once that Manners was an amateur cricketer. It would be helpful to give the reader some background on the amateur-professional divide in county cricket at this time, especially as it's an interesting bit of social history. The 2016 Wisden feature, "Last men in", goes into this.
  • While the sporting aspects of John's life are well covered, the details about his family life seem a bit light. In particular:
  • It seems a bit odd not to mention any of John's siblings I think the rest of this line was added here by accident, but I'm not sure where it fits in the comments so I'm leaving it here unstruck! Richard Nevell (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC), including his sister who it seems is still alive (she is 105 later this year).[reply]
  • His parents' deaths are mentioned in parentheses but perhaps they could be added to the article's chronological narrative, especially if there is anything to say regarding the impact of their deaths.
    • @Richard Nevell: His mother's date of death was incorrectly recorded as 1967 by an obituary. She actually died in 1926, a year before he attended Dartmouth. In his memoirs, he mentions his mother had been ill for most of his childhood, but he had little memory of her. Is this worth including, given the use of his memoirs as a source is a little controversial (see above)? As for his father, he passed away in 1953 and there is no mention of how this affected Manners, his death post-dating the end of Manners' memoirs. StickyWicket (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that the article mentions Manners' photographs and research are archived at MERL. That's a nice addition to the article, and I think shows that his work has value. In a similar manner, I would add to the article that (some of) his private papers are archived at the Imperial War Museum and that he subsequently published his memoirs covering 1938 to 1945. The IWM catalogue entry and the memoirs are both currently used as references, but it would be worth making it explicit for the reader.
  • The MCC Museum has his caps for Wiltshire County Cricket Club and the Wiltshire Queries Cricket Club in their collection. That is worth adding as well, but may also be a thread to pull on as the article doesn't currently mention his involvement with either club but if the MCC is holding onto his caps there must have been a link of some sort to include.
    • That's interesting about a Wiltshire County Cricket Club cap, I wasn't aware he had any playing connection with Wiltshire and it doesn't look like there's any record of him playing for them on CricketArchive. I wonder if this was an honorary thing, will look into that some more. StickyWicket (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added that he played club cricket for the Wiltshire Queries Cricket Club and said he was issued a cap by Wiltshire CCC. Still a mystery on the Wiltshire CCC part, not even some Wiltshire based publications reporting on his death mention any playing association with the club, which lends me to think he was involved on an administrative basis with them. Hopefully I can find out if he was. StickyWicket (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manners' maritime career between 1953 and 1958 is dealt with in a sentence. Did anything of note happen? Can this time be linked to particular ships?
  • According to the Wisden feature, the quote from Arlott originated in the Hampshire 1990 county yearbook. Has it been checked to see if there is more information that could be added?
    • Sadly, I don't have a copy of Hampshire year books going that far back, and I don't know anyone on the cricket project who might. There's no open access online version avaliable either. StickyWicket (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hampshire Record Office in Winchester has a copy of the 1990 edition, but it's only open three days a week and slightly short opening hours. Since the yearbooks start after Manners retired there won't be contemporary reports, and it's likely the Arlott quote that's filtered through to later pieces was the most important bit related to Manners in the 1990s edition. On balance I'll strike this comment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's a reasonably well detailed article about an interesting character, but there are some gaps that need to be addressed. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and address these over the next week or so :) StickyWicket (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell:. All addressed :) StickyWicket (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look, it will probably be Monday evening before I get to it. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this stage all that is outstanding is mentioning that he didn't remember much about his mother and consider whether a sentence or two about the amateur/professional divide can be squeezed in. So we're very close to wrapping up. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass

[edit]

Sources are of good quality.

Spot checks: 5, 9, 12, 20, 43, 44, 46, 49 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done :) StickyWicket (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 18 March 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 March 2023 [41].

Ignace Tonené

[edit]
Nominator(s): CT55555(talk) 22:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ignace Tonené, a 19th-century fur trader in Canada and the Indigenous chief of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai. His gold prospecting caused a gold rush in 1906. CT55555(talk) 22:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
No, a reviewer will materialise. This is largely an internal prompt/reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Licensing looks ok. But there is a contradiction in the dates of the personal life section. He couldn't have married his first wife after she died. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that error, I have now fixed it. They married in 1860. CT55555(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-pinging you, because I added an image since your review. CT55555(talk) 18:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image I have added is up for deletion discussion, although I think it will be kept and the deletion discussion is because someone assumes (due to low resolution) that it is not original work. I sincerely think that assumption of bad faith is at odds with normal behaviour and I assume the image will be kept or speedy kept.
Link: https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Bluesmtb
cc/ping @Buidhe CT55555(talk) 15:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is an enwiki, not Commons, rule and anyway doesn't apply to reasonable suspicion of copyright issues. Now that I look closer I think the deletion !votes have a point. The image will have to be removed since it's very unlikely that the discussion would be closed before the FAC is. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the context, that is helpful. I've deleted the image from the article. CT55555(talk) 18:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

[edit]
  • "died 1916" → Hodgins and Morrison (HM) give "d. 15 March 1916 in the Lac Abitibi region, Que"
  • add the marriages and number of children to the infobox
  • Nias not given in infobox but Maiagizis is?
  • "negotiated with the federal and provincial governments" → I would specify that these are referring to the Canadian federal and Ontario provincial governments per WP:EASTEREGG
  • "also known as Nias and Maiagizis" → this should be repeated in the body, ideally with a note specifying the English meaning as indicated by HM
  • you don't need to repeat citations if the whole paragraph is supported by the same one (ie early life section)
  • the anike ogima (English: deputy-chief)", "As the anike ogima" → see MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
  • "Tonené worked for the Hudson's Bay Company" → specify that he did so from 1857
  • "Tonené was elected to succeed his father" → this is the exact wording of the original source and should be rephrased. There is also close paraphrasing elsewhere.
  • "Tonené, with two associates, met Charles Skene, a federal Indian agent to explain their concerns about arriving lumberjacks and that they sought an annuity and a reserve, since their people's land had not been ceded to the Canadian government" → this can be written clearer without four commas in one sentence
  • "During a January 1, 1879 speech" → see MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "scarcer...so" → see MOS:ELIPSIS
  • "which resulted in an acknowledgement from Lawrence Vankoughnet" → give a word or two before the name to explain who this is; readers should be able to have a basic understanding without having to click on a link
  • "He continued to press for federal financial support and the creation of a reserve through a series of meetings and letters" → with who?
  • "in English" → not seeing this in HM
  • other first nations" → shouldn't First Nations be capitalized?
  • "which he proposed to be", "The community agreed" → the tribal council proposed it collectively, not Tonené alone
  • "south end of Lake Temagami" → Lake Temagami is already linked in the early life section
  • source says Mowat blocked it "mainly because of the valuable pine in the region". This is essential context and should be added
  • "In 1888, after Oliver Mowat's refusal to create the reserve, Tonené moved his family to land between Lake Opasatica and Lake Dasserat near Abitibi, Quebec" → specify that 1888 was also when he was no longer head chief
  • During the journey, Tonené fed his family by hunting and trapping and, motivated by the discovery of silver at Cobalt, Ontario, prospecting" → no this was in 1903 not during the journey to Bear Island.
  • "became so good" → this is kind of informal
  • "Quebec-Ontario" → see MOS:ENBETWEEN
  • cartographic.info → please cite government of Canada website instead of Google Maps
  • Angus needs page number(s)
  • Creskey is a book review of Angus. Please cite Angus instead.
  • you provide a publisher location for one book but not the other; be consistent
  • is there not an ISBN for Potts, Angus? page number should read "p. 212"
  • instead of www.biographi.ca write Dictionary of Canadian Biography and you really only need to include ""Biography – Tonené, Ignace" in the title
  • the further reading appears to be a master's thesis and that is not really necessary to include

Best, Heartfox (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partly an update, party a note to myself: all issues addressed, except:
  1. the anike ogima (English: deputy-chief)", "As the anike ogima" → see MOS:FOREIGNITALIC (I don't understand the feedback)
It should read as deputy-chief (anike ogima) — "Use foreign words sparingly"
  1. Close paraphrasing, (I still need to review)
  2. Page numbers for Cobalt (book)
CT55555(talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox Thank you for the clear feedback, most of which I have addressed. Regarding my points 1 through 3 above:
  1. Can you help me understand what the edit should be (or did it already get resolved perhaps)?
  2. I appologise for this, I thought I had sufficiently changed everything into my own words, can you direct me towards where you saw the close paraphrasing, or if there is a tool you recommend to search for this?
You can check https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ignace+Tonen%C3%A9&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 to see what sentences can be changed to differ a bit more
  1. I've been unable to ascertain this from online work, I will need to revisit the library, so it might take a little time to find the page numbers.
CT55555(talk) 16:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is my use of MOS:ELIPSIS still incorrect? Maybe it's my eyesight, maybe my intelligence (lol), maybe my source code stills, but I can't see the difference between the correct and incorrect way to do them, so I'm confused if they are wrong or right.
If they are wrong, and anyone is willing to make the edit, I'd be very grateful. CT55555(talk) 18:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @SchroCat for fixing the ellipses issue. CT55555(talk) 14:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and commonly known as Chief Tonené" → needs a citation
  • You can use Template:Marriage for the marriages in the infobox
  • There are still paragraphs with repeated sentences being cited to the same source. It's okay to just have one citation at the end of all the sentences citing the same one.
  • You didn't need to split up the paragraphs. It's okay if they're not all about the exact same thing. Having four two-sentence paragraphs in a row is very choppy and discouraged.
  • "and in 1903 starting prospecting motivated by the discovery of silver at Cobalt, Ontario, prospecting" → prospecting repeated twice
  • "for the reserve, the community agreed should be about 100 square miles around Cross Lake and the south end of Lake Temagami. The community agreed." → for the reserve; the community that agreed it should be about 100 square miles around Cross Lake and the south end of Lake Temagami.
  • "primarily concerned about the pine lumber at the location" → specify that it was about the value of the pine, not just the pine itself.
  • use a consistent date format; the death is written differently in the infobox and prose

I have struck addressed comments and replied to your edits. Pinging buidhe as a new image has been added. Best, Heartfox (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox, for the fast re-review, and for the clear feedback. I figured everything out and made every edit request (I think, I hope) with the exception of the page numbers for the Cobalt book (pending library visit). CT55555(talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I was able to ascertain the page numbers for Cobalt: Cradle of the Demon Metals, Birth of a Mining Superpower and added them in CT55555(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done everything suggested. One point remains not struck through ("There are still paragraphs with repeated sentences being cited to the same source. It's okay to just have one citation at the end of all the sentences citing the same one.") even though I think I've addressed that. Please let me know where you see any errors, or if you consider this one addressed. CT55555(talk) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a lot has changed since I first reviewed the article, including the addition of a new book which is now the second-most cited reference. This is really not ideal when the article has so few sources to begin with. I have already spent much time reviewing, and I don't feel comfortable spending more time adding more comments at this time. Consider the comments above as a quasi-peer review. Best, Heartfox (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another reviewer encouraged me to add that book, so I hope I've navigated correctly. I appreciate all the work you've put into this. CT55555(talk) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I was the GA reviewer, and I thought this was close to FAC standard when I passed it. A few more comments:

  • "As the deputy chief, Tonené was also known as Chief Tonene": if the point is that they dropped the accent I'm not sure that's worth mentioning, or even that it's accurate -- this is a 2000s source that is not claiming to give contemporary usage, and Googling "site:https://temagamifirstnation.ca tonene" returns three uses of his name on the site, none with the accent, so I think they're just omitting it. If the point is that he was known as "Chief" even though he was just a deputy chief again I would cut it; I don't think the source is clear that the "Chief" usage is contemporary with the events described, rather than simply using the name he has since become known by.
  • The section on "Temagami leadership" could do with a sentence or two more of background about the Robinson treaties. At first mention you simply say "he raised the issue of his community's exclusion from the 1850 Robinson Treaty between European settlers and Ojibwa nations around Lake Huron", but a reader unfamiliar with the treaties will have no idea what this refers to or what the benefits to his people would have been. Later you link to the same article, with different link text: "Robinson-Huron Treaty"; perhaps make this a section link to the relevant section of the article.
  • Are any more details available about how his claim was jumped? I had a look in newspapers.com but couldn't find anything.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback.
  1. I've removed the alternative name. My initial motivation were both about the accent and the Chief title, but I agree with your feedback, it's not necessary.
  2. I added some background to explain what the treaty is, made the two mentioned of the treaties/treaty more similar and made the second link go to the relevant treaty.
  3. I re-read the relevant parts of Cobalt: Cradle of the Demon Metals, Birth of a Mining Superpower to get more background on the theft. The book doesn't say much more than what was already in the article. I checked Charlie Angus bibliography and he cites a draft article by David Wright. Searching for that article online takes me to the comment page on Wiki Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=File_talk:Tournenie_(HS85-10-21122).jpg which doesn't add any more. I've searched extensively while writing this article and I suspect that no more reliable sources about this exist, at least online.
CT55555(talk) 13:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good, except that I see you added a reference to section 141 of the Indian Act. I don't know if it's correct, but our article says that was added in 1927. What's your source for that section number? And more generally that section doesn't mention any restriction on access to the courts prior to 1927, so I'm also curious what the source is for saying the Indian Act was an issue at all? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Cobalt page 42 "Tonene's claims were jumped by white prospectors. he tried to establish his rights through the courts, but under section 141 of the Indian Act it was illegal for Tonene to hire a lawyer." If it is clear that Charlie Angus made an error in his book (I don't know, I considered it a reliable source), I could just delete that line, I'm neutral on the issue. CT55555(talk) 14:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following some references it appears that there was no law against Indians obtaining legal aid until the 1927 version of the Indian Act, so I think it should be cut. In addition, the biography.ca source says "one of" his claims was jumped; that is, he had more than one claim, and not all were jumped. I think that should be clarified -- I would definitely rank that source as more reliable than a book by a politician. And the mention of the Tonene Old Indian Mining Company is probably worth including too, though it should be clear Tonene's relationship with it is completely unknown. Also, have you looked at this source? I found it via the biography.ca references; it mentions Tonene several times though I don't know if it covers anything you don't have. It might be useful to replace the Angus source in some cases since this is an academic publication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen that source and it contains helpful details on his father, grandfather and brother, also his early leadership activities and some details that helped me expand the article! Thanks! Any tips you have on how you found that would be welcome.
Rather than drop the Indian Act detail, I said that the book claimed.... but if you feel that it should be deleted, I'll agree and do that.
I added mention of the mining company.
The academic source has so much overlapping content with Angus, that I suspect Angus used it as a source, so perhaps I should make those changes. That will take me a bit of time. I'll update on that soon.
Likewise the claim/claims issue will take me more time to process. Will update on that soon too. CT55555(talk) 23:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Indian Act, everything I'm finding says the restriction was introduced in 1927 -- e.g. this, or see this, which explicitly says indigenous people were only banned from hiring lawyers to represent them from 1927 to 1952. I think Tonené's problem was more likely to be what Annalise Acorn outlines on p. 133 here, in the essay "Trust in the Relationship between Indigenous People and the Canadian State": rather than any legal prohibition, it was the practical barrier to getting justice through the courts that stifled indigenous lawsuits. That's only my guess, though, and I think it would stray into original research to introduce anything into the article suggesting that. But I think this all means we shouldn't mention the Indian Act with regard to the claim jumping; it's clear Angus is wrong. As to how I found the source: I starting searching in archive.org for the sources referenced by biography.ca -- archive.org has started carrying an amazing number of books over the last few years and you can find stuff there that's not visible in Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the Indian Act. And I very much appreciate your guidance on sources. CT55555(talk) 03:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence about the Indian Act. CT55555(talk) 03:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reviewed. I was not able to favour the more academic source for the Cobalt book's claims, as the content is not the same. It did let me add a few details (job titles, tree speices) so I made some minor improvements. CT55555(talk) 14:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now addressed each of these recommendations. Please let me know if there is anything remaining that I should do. CT55555(talk) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing left is that I think we should include the biography.ca information that Tonené had multiple claims, and one was stolen, rather than implying his only claim was stolen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. I was careful because:
  1. I've written several mining articles and I think most mines are a combination of various claims and I think what most people call a claim is legally a cluster of adjacent claims. i.e. the distinction is often not made, even in more official sources.
  2. Tonene died poor. The Kerr-Addison Mine produced 12 million ounces of gold. Clearly the one that was stolen was the important one.
So I don't want to imply that was just one of several important claims that was stolen, the theft was clearly the one/ones that mattered.
So I avoided implying he had only one, but I've not emphasised that too much, as it could distract from the point. I hope you'll agree with that? CT55555(talk) 14:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's tricky, and that we have to be careful here. The source says "...he began prospecting. He was successful enough that one of his claims was jumped; Indian Affairs was unable to secure redress." Rereading I don't think it asserts that he definitely had more than one claim -- I would guess that the author found information in Indian Affairs archives about the failure to correct the claim jumping, so that means he had one claim, but it doesn't say if or how many other claims he had. I would also cut "ore body" as being unnecessary detail and also to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. How about "He discovered the Kerr Addison gold mine at McGarry, and is known to have staked at least one claim there, though that claim was stolen from him by white settlers"? Then something similar in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done almost that, but needed to add words "... at a location that later became the..." because the mine wasn't created until several years later.
I think that satisfactorily resolvs it. What do you think? CT55555(talk) 15:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made minor subsequent edits, I think no meaning was changed. But now I think "at least one claim there" could be replaced with "a claim there" as that means the same and doesn't hint so strongly towards something unknown. If you agree so far, would you also agree to that? CT55555(talk) 15:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine point, but I think we do need to imply more than one claim -- the biography.ca source does say "one of his claims". The lead currently says "although his claim over the gold was stolen from him by white Canadian prospectors"; could we make that "one of his claims", which is the phrasing the source uses? It's too short a phrase to be a close paraphrasing issue. Then in the body I think it would be best to leave it as is. SchroCat, since you're reviewing this too, would you mind commenting? To save you reading the whole discussion, the issue is how to represent the sources, one of which says "one of his claims" but gives information about only one claim. I think that means we should avoid wording that implies there was only one claim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis and changed the lead accordingly. CT55555(talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in that case. SchroCat, looks like the question is resolved, though of course if you do take a look it would be good to have your opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The lead looks fine, although the body says staked at least one claim there, though that claim was stolen from him by white settlers". There are two points here - one of which is the quote mark, which needs to either have a twin or be removed. The other point moves from plural to singular (at least one claim ... that claim). Could "that" be replaced by "a"? - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the accidental quote mark.
I edited the sentence, I went for "staked at least one claim there which was subsequently stolen from him by white settlers" which I think reads better. Although, I'm happy to use your words if you think they are better. CT55555(talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my support, above, as I'm opposing for sourcing reasons, below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SC

[edit]

A good article, but a few comments:

  • "and The Crown": should be a lower-case "t"
  • "for both an immediate and an ongoing financial payments": this doesn't quite work. "for an immediate and ongoing financial payments" would work
  • "During a January 1, 1879, speech": I'm never happy seeing constructions like this – and the day isn't necessary. How about "During a speech in January 1879"?
  • "Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deferred the matter to the Ontario Premier as land claims were a provincial government, rather than a federal issue, although in 1883 the Department of Indian Affairs agreed to an annual payment to the nation comparable to the amount other First Nations included in the Robinson Huron Treaty were receiving." This sentence is a little long and tries to do too much – so much so that I had to re-read it a couple of times to make sure I understood it. It could do with rewording and probably splitting.
  • "the community agreed it should be about 100 square miles surrounding Cross Lake and at the south end of Lake Temagami. The community agreed." Why are we told "the community agreed" twice in quick succession?
  • "starting prospecting motivated": comma after prospecting needed
  • "gold instigating the": "instigated" would be better
  • You state in the lead that "his stake was stolen from him by white Canadian prospectors": that isn't quite matched by "his claim was stolen from him".

That's my lot. – SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the way you presented the feedback to make it easy to make the improvements. I agree with all this helpful feedback and have made all the suggested improvements. CT55555(talk) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice article. Short, but I am going to AGF that you've exhausted all the relevant sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • The date formats used in the footnotes should be made consistent; you have "1 March 2022" and "2013-02-15".
  • The two web citations using {{cite web}} are fine, but are inconsistent with the Canadian Geographical Names Database citation.
  • The three book citations are not consistent -- you might find {{cite book}} worth trying, though it's completely optional, as it would automatically resolve some consistency issues. Specific points:
    • You have a page number at the end of the Potts cite after the ISBN but not for any of the other citations. Cites have to allow a reader to find the material; citing to a whole book is not precise enough.
    • Formatting nitpicks: you have a full stop and a space after "Charlie Angus (2022)", but neither after "Bruce W. Hodgins and Jamie Benidickson (1989)".
    • Be consistent about whether you use "Last name, first name" or "First name last name".

As this is your first FAC we need to do a spotcheck. I've already looked at several sources as part of the review, but will check some more once you've added page numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clear details. I believe I have now addressed them all. CT55555(talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you divide FN 2 into separate footnotes for the different page numbers? E.g. there should be one for p. 35, one for 40-48 (or more, if that range could be sensibly subdivided).

Spotchecks:

  • FN 6 cites "In 2016, the lake south of Bear Lake and north of Larder Lake was officially renamed as Chief Tonene Lake." Mostly verified, but as far as I can tell it's not clear there was a prior name, so "named" rather than "renamed" might be safer.
  • FNs 1 & 4 cite "Tonené and two associates met federal Indian agent Charles Skene to explain their concerns about arriving lumberjacks. As their people's land had not been ceded to the Canadian government, the delegation sought an annuity and a reserve." Can you give the source material you're using from Potts for this? From the other source the supporting sentence is "In 1877 Tonené and two others met on Lake Nipissing with federal Indian agent Charles Skene, and explained that their community had never ceded its land but now wanted an annuity from the treaty and a reserve." This is too closely paraphrased; it's essentially the same sentence with some synonyms substituted. In a situation like this it's usually better to forget the original sentence and re-explain the content from scratch without reference to the source, to try to come up with a new way to give the information. And a lumberjack is a workman; a lumberman can mean a businessman who runs a lumber company, so those are not synonyms.
  • FN 2 cites "He continued to press the government for federal financial support and the creation of a reserve through a series of meetings and letters written in Anishinaabe, which resulted in an acknowledgement from Indian agent Deputy Superintendent Lawrence Vankoughnet in 1880 that approximately 2,700 square miles of Temagami land was indeed unceded." Is this from p. 46? If so it's actually 2770 square miles, so 2,800 would be a more natural way to round it. I can't see anything there about the language of the letters, and only one meeting is clearly described. Is there more about this elsewhere in the source?
  • FN 5 cites "His successful finds of gold instigated the Larder Lake gold rush of 1906, according to the Canadian Mining Journal." Can you quote the supporting text?
  • FN 1 cites "Initially, Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deferred the matter to the Ontario Premier, but in 1883, the Department of Indian Affairs agreed to an annual payment to the nation." The supporting text in the source is "Though the deputy superintendent general of Indian affairs, Lawrence Vankoughnet, agreed in 1880 that the Temagami land, estimated at 2,770 square miles, “does not appear to have been surrendered,” the superintendent general (and prime minister), Sir John A. Macdonald, deferred action since only the province could set land aside. Nevertheless, in 1883 Indian Affairs agreed to pay an annual grant equivalent to that provided to other bands under the Robinson-Huron Treaty." This seems inaccurate to me -- there's no reason to say "Initially", since the source doesn't connect Macdonald's action with the action by Indian Affairs, and no mention of the Ontario Premier.
  • FN 1 cites "In his leadership role, he raised the issue of his community's exclusion from the Robinson Treaties between European settlers and Ojibwa nations around Lake Huron." The source has "As second chief, Tonené had raised the matter of his people's non-participation in the treaty negotiated by William Benjamin Robinson in 1850 with Ojibwa communities on Lake Huron." This is too close; again this is the original sentence with some synonyms substituted.
  • FN 1 cites "He was born in 1840 or 1841 near Lake Temagami in the Teme-Augama Anishnabai community of the Temagami First Nation in what British settlers knew as Upper Canada." The source has "b. 1840 or 1841 in the vicinity of Lake Temagami, Upper Canada, eldest son of Kabimigwune (François) and Marian; d. March 15, 1916 in the Lac Abitibi region, Que. Ignace Tonené was a member of the highly nomadic group of natives known in the 19th century, and through much of the 20th, as the Temagami band of Ojibwa, who now regard themselves as a non-Ojibwa “border people” called the Teme-Augama Anishnabai." The source deliberately avoids giving his people the name "Teme-Augama Anishnabai" at the time of his birth, and doesn't say anything about the community he was born into, only the people he was a member of.

Oppose. I'm sorry to do this, since I think a lot of care has gone into the article, but short articles with thin sourcing can be particularly difficult to work with because it's hard to piece the material together without re-using the original sentences. Here the problems with integrity seem to be the result of slight inaccuracies introduced by paraphrasing, with the unfortunate result that the close paraphrasing problems are not eliminated either. This sort of thing is not all that quick to fix, but it's a short article -- if you decide to rework the text while it's still here at FAC, I suggest getting another source reviewer to take a look. If another reviewer feels the problems are gone I will re-evaluate my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose per SN's re-review below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN6 if you click "other names" you get to here: https://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique?id=0c5258d7849c20c33345630cad47791b and you see the earlier names lac Tournen and Tournene Lake (quote "previously official"). So it was officially renamed. Maybe I should add a citation, I thought because it was one click it might be OK. CT55555(talk) 22:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a 7th citation to make this more clear. CT55555(talk) 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FNs 1 & 4 cite "Tonené and two associates met federal Indian agent Charles Skene to explain their concerns about arriving lumberjacks. As their people's land had not been ceded to the Canadian government, the delegation sought an annuity and a reserve."
It is from: In 1877 Tonené and two others met on Lake Nipissing with federal Indian agent Charles Skene, and explained that their community had never ceded its land but now wanted an annuity from the treaty and a reserve..
I see your point, it is very similar. I tried to rewrite it in my own words, but my desire for accuracy got the better of me.
I have rewritten that sentence to: Tonené was concerned about the impact of lumberjacks and their impact on the natural resources. He advocated to federal Indian agent Charles Skene for the provision of an annuity payment and the creation of reserve. CT55555(talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2,700 now corrected to 2,800. Sorry bad mathematics. CT55555(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the language of the letters. Source 1 says: sending letters written in his own language which is my source for "and letters written in Anishinaab" CT55555(talk) 22:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the meetings is from the earlier part of that sentence in the source "Tonené kept up the pressure for grants and a reserve, meeting several times with Skene and his successor..." CT55555(talk) 22:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the Canadian Mining Journal line is Coblat. "The Canadian Mining Journal credited Tonene with launching the 1906 Larder Lake gold rush..." p42 CT55555(talk) 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that "initially" was a fair paraphrasing, the source seems to say that happened first. Quoting: "Sir John A. Macdonald*, deferred action since only the province could set land aside. Nevertheless, in 1883 Indian Affairs agreed to pay an annual grant equivalent to that provided to other bands under the Robinson-Huron Treaty." It seems unavoidably correct that Sir John's actions were initial. So I think my words are correct, but I feel like maybe I'm missing something here? CT55555(talk) 22:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note the very fair observation about my close paraphrasing. I again strived for accuracy and got too close to the original words. I have now rewritten the sentence: "As second chief, Tonené had raised the matter of his people's non-participation in the treaty negotiated by William Benjamin Robinson in 1850 with Ojibwa communities on Lake Huron". CT55555(talk) 22:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an astute observation, the subtly of which escaped me until now. I have now removed the Teme-Augama Anishnabai label in the early life section. CT55555(talk) 22:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, unless you can find a reviewer willing to go through your changes in the next two or three days I am afraid that this will be archived, for you to continue your work on it off-FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, I wasn't sure what to do next. I am optimistic that I have addressed all of @Mike Christie's concerns. I'm new to this, so a bit unsure of how things work. How/where would I find a reviewer willing to go through my changes? CT55555(talk) 13:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps post a request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and/or Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just pinging you @Gog the Mild now that the incredibly helpful @Serial Number 54129 has passed the source review. Also noting that @In_actu has withdrawn their objection. CT55555(talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're in no rush to close it down SN, it has picked up a couple of supports and the images seem sound. So take your time, watch out for Mike's famous fix loop and let us know how your explorations go. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass: Source review: Furst blood, part deux
[edit]

*[In progress] SN54129 14:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Formating:[reply]

  • Your page range for Cobalt should be 'pp' rather than 'p'; ditto Hodgins #2.
  • Might be worth archiving ref #3, unless you can find an online identifier for it?
  • One thing that stands out to me more than anything is the sheer reliance on two sources—both of which share a co-author. In brown numbers, Bruce Hodgins accounts for 24 out of 32 discrete references. That's one helluva reliance on what's arguably a single source. SchroCat points out AGF above, and on the whole, I think we can agree that if the tightrope of verifiability-while-avoiding-close-paraphrasing has been crossed successfully, we can assume that 1b and 1f are passed.
    Here we go.
Ref # Article says Source says Ref supports?
1a "Maiagizis - Ignace Tonené, - Nias. - 1840 or 1841 - Lake Temagami - Temagami First Nation - British settlers - Upper Canada - eldest son - François Kabimigwune and Marian". No mention of Brit settlers. Mostly.
1b "From 1857 - Hudson's Bay Company - delivering mail between its trading posts at Lake Timiskaming and Lake Temagami - Fort Témiscamingue - likely learned French". Truncated. Yes.
1c "1868 - elected successor of father - Deputy Chief (anike ogima) - head chief in 1878" "Tonené was elected to succeed his father as second chief (anike ogima) of the band about 1868 and he became head chief in 1878" Yes; poss c-p issue.
1d "First Nations surrounding Lake Huron, Tonené's community were not party to the Robinson Treaties" Much more detailed Yes.
1e "Tonené advocated for redress and support for his people" Sums up an entire para. Yes.
1f Re. Skene Ditto below Yes.
1g A quote re. lumber and furs. Correctly cited. Yes.
1h "Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deferred the matter to the Ontario Premier, but in 1883, the Department of Indian Affairs agreed to an annual payment to the nation. The payments were comparable to the amounts received by other First Nations who were parties to Robinson Huron Treaty. In 1884, Tonené convened a tribal council on Bear Island to discuss the potential location for the reserve; the community agreed it should be about 100 square miles surrounding Cross Lake and at the south end of Lake Temagam" Sums up a much longer para also dealing with hostility to native land. Yes.
1i 1888 - chiefdom ended - moved his family to between Lake Opasatica and Lake Dasserat near Abitibi Quebec. In 1889, he travelled to Bear Island to meet Indian agent Thomas Walton and ask for seeds and farming equipment for his community No mention of Thos Walton, but nothing this is double cited. Yes.
1j "Tonené hunted and trapped to feed his family, and in 1903 starting prospecting, motivated by the recent silver discovery at Cobalt, Ontario" Sums up short para in one line. Yes.
1k "He discovered gold at McGarry that later became the Kerr-Addison mine, and staked at least one claim there which was subsequently stolen from him by white settlers" Sums up short para in one line. Yes (perhaps link Claim jumper while yer at it)
1l "The Tonene Old Indian Mining Company issued a prospectus just prior to the start of World War I, but sources do not indicate if Tonené was affiliated or benefited from the company" "a prospectus was issued for the Tonene Old Indian Mining Company"; "whether Tonené benefited is unclear." The first is just the same two points swapped around; but I admit I'm not sure you could repeat something as basic without closely paraphrasing. But re, the second point, the sources query whether T. benefitted by makes to comment as T.'s affiliation (or not).
1m "Tonené succeeded as head chief by John Paul- continued to hunt and trap - Abitibi country - 1893 death of John Paul - Tonené again head chief - from 1910 honorary or life chief - primary advisor to - his younger brother Frank White Bear. Sums up the section. Yes.
1n "1860 - Tonené married Angèle - daughter of former Temagami band chief Nebenegwune - two sons two daughters - died in childbirth in 1869 - 1871 - Tonené married Elisabeth Pikossekat - Timiskaming band - had three daughters" Supports everything exc. "2 sons/2 daus", but some quite clever maths allows that conclusion to be drawn without verging into OR. Yes.
1o "Both of Tonené's sons died before adulthood, although his five daughters all lived into adulthood, married and had children" Relates to the previous point. Yes.
1p "Tonené died on March 15, 1916, near Lake Abitibi, Quebec" First para. Yes.
1q "buried close to Mount Kanasuta, Quebec near the Quebec–Ontario border." "buried near Mont Kanasuta on the Quebec-Ontario boundary." Not sure how else this could be phrased, tbh.
3 "The treaties were two 1850 formal agreements between Ojibwa chiefs and the Crown in which chiefs relinquished land in exchange for an immediate and ongoing financial payments" Summed in 6th para. Yes.
4 "He advocated to federal Indian agent Charles Skene for the provision of an annuity payment and the creation of reserve" "Historical records of Skene s letters to his superior at the Department of Indian Affairs, L. Vankoughnet, describe his meetings with Tonene..." Yes (most of p.212).
5a "Ontario Premier Oliver Mowat - reputation for hostility towards to Indigenous treaty rights - blocked the land transfer - primarily concerned about the value of the white pine - lumber at the location" "Tonene wrote a series of letters to both the provincial and federal governments, but to no avail. Liberal premier Oliver Mowat was extremely hostile to Tonene and his advocacy". Almost - mention of (red and) white pine and lumber on the next page?
5b "His successful finds of gold instigated the Larder Lake gold rush of 1906, according to the Canadian Mining Journal." "The Canadian Mining Journal credited Tonene with launching the 1906 Larder Lake gold rush" Yes.
5c "His successful finds of gold instigated the Larder Lake gold rush of 1906, according to the Canadian Mining Journal." "Tonene’s stolen claims eventually led to the founding of the Kerr-Addison Mine, one of the richest gold mines in Canadian history." More or less, although the order is swapped about?
5d "The location of his burial was later turned into a gravel pit and then a community dump" "the land where he was buried was later turned into a gravel pit, and then a community dump" Bit close! But, again, its effectively a list of nouns.
6 "the lake south of Bear Lake and north of Larder Lake was officially renamed as" Sourced to an image (map). Yes.
7 "the lake south of Bear Lake and north of Larder Lake was officially renamed as" Sourced to an image (map). Yes.
  • I have been unable to source Hodgins/Benedickson )#2), and I suspect that SchroCat's suggestion of AgF suffices. I wouldn't usually, considering the number of text/source integrity, and para-phrasing issues Mike found. But the amount of rewriting that has taken place to reduce those errors—note I have examined 25 out of 32 citations and found minimal problems, I feel confident that the single print source unavailable to me would likely be much different.
    Personally, I'd feel comfortable passing this review as long as we are happy with the reliance on a such a small number of sources. If we are, I don't think we have anything longer to complain about the prose. IMHO, of course. SN54129 17:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I very much appreciate the fast response and the diligence and pragmatism of the comments. I've made the two changes suggested (pp and archive). Noting the reliance on Hodgins' work, just to note that he was a PhD chair of a university's history department and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography was published by the University of Toronto and Laval University. I consider the reliability of him as a source to be at the top end of the spectrum. The second source that he is heavily involved in was published by the University of Toronto Press.
    Bruce Hodgins new Wikipedia article
    If I should make any edits in response to comment in the table, I will do so immediately. This is my first FA review, so I don't know the rules or customs, so I won't take any action unless someone indicates that I should. CT55555(talk) 19:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CT55555: just to clarify, but questioning of Hodgins as a source is not questioning either his notability or reliability, but, rather, that if one uses only one source, then one is in more danger of suggestions of (albeit unconscious) plagiarism. This is because, even if one changes the words, it is impossible to change the ideas behind them. Luckily, I don't think we're at that stage here. There's a couple of tweaks you should make per the last column of the table. @Gog the Mild and Gog: I went through the databases and, while there appeared a fair amount on Canadian First Nations, combined with the individual himself, brought the results crashing down. This suggests to me that most of what is on Tonené has been used, and what else I found would be undue in his personal bio. So to answer your question, if CT55555 deals with the minor points highlighted, I'd be happy, personally, to pass this source review. SN54129 12:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That is helpful. And also clarifies that I should make minor edits in response to the table, so I'll do that in the next hour or so. CT55555(talk) 13:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129, I have now acted on the feedback presented in the table above. I've made each fix a separate edit with edit summaries linking to the reference numbers. CT55555(talk) 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SN, nicely done and nicely summarised. But now I need to press you: are you happy with the reliance on a such a small number of sources? @Buidhe, Heartfox, Mike Christie, and SchroCat: as you have reviewed the article I would be grateful for your opinions on this single, narrow point. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a wealth of new scholarship regarding Indigenous peoples in Canada over the past few years, but in my experience it seems to be focused on the West and not northern Ontario/Quebec. The reliance on a small number of sources seems to be out of the nominator's control. It is likely that more will become available in the coming decades. Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose on sourcing above; SN, thanks for the thorough re-review. Gog, I tend to agree with Heartfox that this is probably all there is, and my own partial searches during the source review tend to confirm that. I think Guerillero's question deserves an answer though, so I'll wait for that before reinstating my support on content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, per request I've taken a look at this. Not seeing really anything else that can be added that I'd consider to be high-quality RS. Herman the Archdeacon (promoted in 2022) and Viatkogorgon is pretty much based on a single author plus one pair of co-authors, so narrow reliance is okay IMO if that's truly all there is. But Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway/archive2 is a counter-point for when something is too far. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to register my discomfort with this article in regards to 1b and 1c. The leade, personal life and legacy sections all feel bare. If there is a Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry there should be more sourcing out there. What work was done to make sure that these 7 digital sources are all there is? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I suspect this is a reflection on the extent to which the lives of Indigenous peoples was under reported. Work done to make sure these sources are all there is: For what it's work, I'm an editor that people seek help from when trying to expand articles and I have a track record of finding sources that others don't find. I do that by searching for all combinations of names, and unique identifiers on Google, Google News, ProQuest, Wikipedia Library, Google Books. This FA process did identify a book that was missing and I learned something from that. So I can only say that in creating this article I searched far and wide and would be surprised if I missed something. If anyone has any suggestions on more I could do, I welcome it and will investigate it. I'm determined that we all know as much about Tonené as possible, and I have done every action I can think of to maximise that. CT55555(talk) 22:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comment, after writing it I realised that perhaps the Dictionary of Canadian Biography citations themselves would give clues.
I'm working through them and have found so far one source that confirms the translation of his name. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/rncan-nrcan/M46-70-eng.pdf
I'll update if I find more. CT55555(talk) 22:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my objection -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s probably OK. I’ve done searches through a couple of general sources, but have found nothing additional. Many of the references on the DCB are primary, which makes them awkward to use freely, and given the paucity of sources, I think the article is ok for FA. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 15 March 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) 15 March 2023 [42].

Otto Klemperer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a German conductor, famous for his interpretations of Beethoven and other German composers. He battled against continual setbacks, including a brain tumour, bipolar disorder and multiple burns, and was regarded in the 1950s to the 1970s as the most authoritative conductor of the German classical repertory. I had the luck, as a young man, half a century ago, to go to his last concerts, and I hope I have done him justice in the article as it now stands. Tim riley talk 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • Much of the matter regarding dates of citizenship in the info box is not well-sourced in the article. His citizenship situation is a bit glossed-over in the article, especially in the 1930s.
  • I can't be more specific, I'm afraid. The main source (the Heyworth two-volume biography) states that the Nazis deprived Jews of their German citizenship in 1935, and I cannot find any reference to the legal status of his citizenship of anywhere until 1940 when he became a US citizen. Tim riley talk 09:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The board of the Los Angeles orchestra terminated his contract, and his subsequent appearances were few, and seldom with prestigious ensembles.[21]" I take it that subsequent appearances refers to in Los Angeles? I might add a "there" or "with it" following "appearances" if so.
  • It's not really made clear where he was living at and after the time of his termination by Los Angeles, and on what, leaving aside his daughter's factory earnings.
  • He remained mostly based in Los Angeles, with a period spent in New York. His fees for conducting the minor ensembles who offered him work were small, but he could afford to live, very modestly. Tim riley talk 09:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You title The Marriage of Figaro both in English and Italian at different points.
  • "he accepted the offer of Israeli citizenship". Is that a special offer made by the government or is it the standard offer of citizenship open to anyone that Israel recognises as a Jew and who cares to meet the requirements for Israeli citizenship? Had he not been a famous conductor, he might have run afoul of the Brother Daniel decision. Also, I note a number of AP stories from August 5, 1970 that mention this, and it states he plans to reside in Tel Aviv, for example here. Anything come of that?
  • It was a personal offer made by the Israeli government. It caused some difficulty with the West German government. This is from Heyworth:
Some weeks later the West German consulate in Zurich wrote to warn Klemperer that if, as the Jewish Chronicle in London had claimed, he himself had asked for Israeli citizenship, he had offended against German regulations and should forfeit his German passport. The storm eventually blew over after the Israeli government provided a document certifying that the passport had been issued under the Return Law, which for undivulged reasons obviated any expression of intention on Klemperer's part.
There is no suggestion I can find that Klemperer contemplated living in Israel. Tim riley talk 09:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That brief squib of an article also says he had Swiss citizenship. They get it wrong?
  • Footnote 1. It's really more about pronunciation than spelling (which would be in Hebrew characters anyway). Both groups would spell it (in Hebrew) the same, they would just pronounce it differently. That's probably more than you want to know about this. Suggest the links be pipes to Ashkenazi Hebrew and Sephardi Hebrew and suggest you state "rendering" rather than "spelling".
  • Could we have a little more on his personal life?
  • When in the manic phases of his illness, Klemperer developed passionate, not to say obsessive, feelings for a number of women over the years. I could add a line to that effect, but to my mind it borders on tittle-tattle, though I am not implacably opposed to mentioning it. He remained devoted to his wife and family. Tim riley talk 09:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these helpful points, Wehwalt. All addressed − satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 09:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

[edit]
  • File:C_1920_Otto_Klemperer.jpg: when and where was this first published?

As ever, Nikkimaria, thank you for the review and helpful advice. Tim riley talk 08:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Interested in the topic, I'll take a look, skipping lead and infobox for now. I have the feeling that music-related facts would interest me more than the details of citizenship, which possibly could be summarized as German, American and Israeli. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are just suggestions.

Early years

  • "production of Orpheus in the Underworld at the New Theatre, Berlin" - I bet the performance was in German, and would prefer the German title Orpheus in der Unterwelt, and - anyway - to add "Offenbach's" - as we do have readers unfamiliar with such titles in whatever language.
    • I think you are probably correct that it was given in German, but if I understand the MoS aright we should give operas etc the title by which they are best known in English usage. My personal preference would be to use the title of the original language - Orphée aux enfers, Le nozze di Figaro etc, but I think I must follow the WP formulas. Tim riley talk 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We are not slaves of the MoS ;) - I would always use the original title for a premiere, and most often use the title used for a performance, which will mentioned in reviews, for example. I would always add the last name of the composer, as we write for a broad audience, readers who'd rather know Offenbach than any of the titles. --GA

Germany

  • "She was a Christian; he converted from Judaism. He remained a practising Roman Catholic until 1967, when he left the faith." - I suggest: "She was a Catholic; he converted from Judaism, and remained a practising church member until 1967." (thinking that faith is something personal that only he really knew)
    • Joanna was a Protestant before marrying Klemperer. I cannot be certain whether she too converted to Roman Catholicism, though I think she probably did. Why, if so, I cannot comment on. Tim riley talk 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is more complex than I thought, sorry. The German article has nothing about her religion. --GA
  • why "modernistic" vs. modern?
    • There is a great difference. Modern just means new (though quite possibly traditional in style), but modernistic, according to the OED, denotes "Any of various movements in art, architecture, literature, etc., generally characterized by a deliberate break with classical and traditional forms or methods of expression; the work or ideas of the adherents of such a movement". Tim riley talk 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for explaining, and it seems different from German, where "modernistisch" has a negative connotation. --GA
  • "from The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Fidelio and Lohengrin to Elektra and The Soldier's Tale" - I suggest to add the composers: from Mozarts Figaro and Don Giovanni, Beethoven's Fidelio and Wagner's Lohengrin to Elektra by Richard Strauss and Stravinsky's Die Geschichte vom Soldaten. I wonder if there could be a hint at the fact that the last two works were really young then.
    • I don't think readers of an article about a conductor will need to be told who composed Figaro, and the blue link will provide the information for any who need it. It is to distinguish between the established classics and the modernistic works that I have put the Strauss and Stravinsky works after the "to", but I am reluctant to impose an editorial comment about their modernity. Tim riley talk 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As said before, I would write for readers who may not know Figaro and Fidelio at all but may have heard of Mozart and Beethoven, giving them a clue about the period, especially when none of the works matters (no review, no director, no singers), but the broadness of repertoire.

I got to the Holländer at the Kroll Opera, no comments but I made some suggested changes that you can easily revert if not convinced. - Real life calling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up after your alterations. It took some time, and it would be helpful if you suggested here any further changes that take your fancy. Tim riley talk 16:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

  • In the long list of works at the Kroll Opera, I'd not link the composers, to avoid a sea of blue: whoever doesn't know Hindemith can be sure to find him when looking at Cardillac. The composer of Erwartung was Schönberg, - he used Schoenberg only later. (I happened to see Das Leben des Orest last year, but missed then that Klemperer conducted the premiere, - nice to know.)
    • Our WP article on Schoenberg uses that spelling throughout. Many, perhaps most, readers of this article will not know that he dropped the umlaut when he settled in America; it would be unreasonably confusing to spell his name two different ways here, and "oe" for "ö" in German names is not incorrect in English usage: as early as 1885 the Court Circular in The Times referred to "The Count Erbach of Erbach-Schoenberg", and the composer was printed as "Arnold Schoenberg" from 1912 onwards. It was not that umlauts were unavailable for compositors and editors: Marie Löhr was given hers from 1902. As to removing the links from what I agree is a sea of blue, if I take them out you may be perfectly certain that someone else will put them back again. Tim riley talk 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the umlaut concern, and while I observe that some editors are picky on such things as the historic precision of diacritics, I'm not one of them. - If "someone else will put them back again" I'm perfectly willing to restore the version without. --GA
  • Is the image of the Kroll Opera really the best image of places where he worked? Wiesbaden File:Staatstheater Wiesbaden Zuschauersaa012.JPG - It's sad that all interior images of the Kroll we have are Nazi pics.
    • The picture of the Wiesbaden house is splendid, but looks like a dozen other opera houses: the Kroll is a little more distinctive, and the photograph comes from Klemperer's time there. Tim riley talk 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "from his time" is a good point --GA
  • Bruckner's Eighth - again I wouldn't link the composer.
  • "where with such conductors as Bruno Walter, Wilhelm Furtwängler and Leo Blech already established, there was little important work for him" - I stumbled over "where with such" and would probably get the fact first and the reason afterwards, but that may be just me.

Los Angeles

  • both Stravinsky and Schoenberg were linked before (in the present version), intentionally?
    • Strangely the "highlight duplicate links" tool missed the duplicate link to Stravinsky (perhaps because it is in a quote rather than in the main text). The second link to Schoenberg is in a caption, and is par for the course. 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I looked at the image caption first and got the impression that Klemperer did not programme Schoenberg (not at all), and then was corrected by Gurrelieder, a giant work. I suggest to trim the caption to simply teaching, not grumbling ;)
  • Done.
  • I wonder if the musicologist's "penetratingly" comment might be better in the composition section.
  • "but realised that 'after this affair of the Mahler symphony I wouldn't be engaged again'" - I'm no friend of quotes that switch within a sentence from third person to first person, and would write "but realised that 'after this affair of the Mahler symphony' he wouldn't be engaged again".
  • "little-known John Barbirolli" - then little-known perhaps

1938 to 1945

  • "but left him lame and partly paralysed on his right side" - in German we have only one word for lame and paralysed, what's the difference?
  • "As her father struggled to support the family from his modest fees, Lotte worked in a factory to bring in some money" - I struggled to remember what "her" meant, - would it be bad English to say that his daughter Lotte worked ... as her father ...?

Post-war

London

  • Do we need two descriptions of the Philharmonia when we have an article? Rolls-Royce is funny but what does it tell us about Klemperer?
    • Rolls-Royce is not intended to be funny. It is a standard – perhaps clichéd – image for anything of the very highest excellence. The OED says it denotes "Any product considered to be the highest quality or best example of its type or field". The superb playing of the Philharmonia was key to making Klemperer's (and in the early 50s Karajan's) recordings sell so well. Klemperer's recordings with less prestigious orchestras such as the Vienna Symphony were well-reviewed but did not sell anything like as well.
      If the hint at high class connected to selling well is intended, fine. I missed it, though, but possibly just me again. --GA
  • I am surprised that Mahler's Second has just a number, while Beethoven's Ninth is named Choral Symphony (and I first confused it with his Choral Fantasy.

Later years

I read until his death, and don't know when I'll get to the rest, having to travel for a sad reason. Thank you already for an enlightening article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Returned from a funeral: thank you for your replies and changes. All understood even when I made no extra note. I'll probably continue reading tomorrow, as a RD (recent death) article is waiting, and I have rehearsal tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Recordings

I looked at the Main article, and think it would profit a lot of links to the pieces: better a link to a particular symphony than key and Op. number, - this is not relevant to the FAC, but by the time he'll appear as TFA it should change. Some recordings are listed in greater detail in opera discographies, and perhaps a link could go there for details such as soloists in roles. Touching that Schwarzkopf was First Lady, but a reader who never heard her name will not be impressed.

I have much work to do on the discography article, and will attend to it as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 18:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to the conductor article:

  • General: I wonder if Bruckner's Eighth should be linked, for example, - yes it was linked further up, but I can see readers jump to recordings without reading it all sequentially. (I would perhaps not say so if it was at least linked in the discography.)
  • General: lists of soloists name remain pretty meaningless name-calling if not assigned roles, or at least a piece.
  • For personal sentimentality: Can we perhaps include Kathleen Ferrier's Mahler?


Honours

Reputation

Lead

  • "A protégé of the composer Gustav Mahler" - for his conducting career, the conductor Mahler was likely more important; we could have both functions, or none as he seems rather well-known now.
  • brain tumor: I wonder if this particular medical problem might be shortened, and rather other such setbacks be added to a summary of how ill health hit him but he resurfaced again and again.
  • Last sentence: I think Mozart has undue weight by length and final position, and would prefer a wording that ends on Beethoven, as the article does.

Infobox

  • After having read the article, I believe the citizenship is of minor importance. Perhaps Israeli could be dropped at all, as more honorary, without residency there. The others could go without the years.
  • What I miss is a list of organisations he worked for, the major opera houses and orchestras - for much more music ;)
    • Sorry you think that. I thought I'd covered the major ones of his long career. Tim riley talk
      I'll perhaps get back to that topic when I'm less busy, see above. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      still busy (with his wife, among other topics) but trying to clarify: for a reader who knows nothing when arriving at the article, the exact details of citizenship seem less important than "making some music" in paragraph organizations, such as key assignments of his career, with the number of them listed depending on the wanted degree of detail, my suggestion: (Prussian State Theatre Wiesbaden ·) Kroll Opera · Los Angeles Philharmonic (· Hungarian State Opera ·) Philharmonia Orchestra. This would also add the precision of Los Angeles vs. just US. I expect that some readers would immediately connect a location with the Kroll Opera and the Philharmonia, and could see these key places in the ibox sooner than in the lead, and get interested to find out more detail about someone at an avantgarde theatre and a high-class orchestra, - more interested I think than just reading someone worked in three countries. Please compare his wife's article, where I tried to pick her most relevant stations of work among the many. Yesterday I began reading the Heyworth bio, - great reading! I wonder if the order of conversion and marriage should be changed, as in the bio. First he converted, then came more closeness to her (her visit in Maria Laach) and the wedding, after for about two years they had been more or less been people working together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • ALtered sentence about conversion/marriage. The info about appointments is adequately summarised in the lead, in my view. Tim riley talk 08:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the change. I agree that the stations of his career are summarised in the lead, although they miss where he liked it best ;) - Only: they don't show in the infobox, where I think a number of our reader will look first. Even if no stations there, I'd remove the years from the citizenships, as undue detail, but you decide. - I fixed indenting again. Did you read the essay? Nutshell: when replying to a thread, keep what was there before and add one, for accessibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think of these suggestions, I support the article for our highest quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Tim riley talk 18:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read more about his wife, I have a few more questions:

  • "She retired from singing in the mid-1930s." I can't access Heyworth vol 2, but Großes Sängerlexikon notes a vocal crisis (after 1928), and several agree that her singing career was over when they left Germany in 1933 the latest. - If your sources have records of her appearing after 1928, I'd be grateful if you could add them to her article.
  • I believe that mentioning the world premieres of Die tote Stadt and Der Zwerg would actually be more related to his career than whichever years his wife stopped singing on stage, and Marietta, a role she created, would tell those who know the opera in one word what she was able to do.
  • If you know which other operas Klemperer conducted in Cologne, it might give a clue for the role pictured, possibly in 1922. It doesn't look (to me) like any of the ones already mentioned, unless perhaps Despina. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berlin (next header) is also a German opera house, - I suggest to name the houses in the header, instead of "German opera houses". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I find your comments on Klemperer's Judaism confusing. In the lead you do not mention it, although it seems relevant to his decision to leave Germany on the rise of Nazism. You mention in a note the Sephardi version of his name and in the main text that the family name was changed in response to a decree aimed at Jewish assimilation, but you do not say that they were Jewish. The note and the statement that Ida was Sephardi imply that the father was Ashkenazi, but he had the Sephardi form of the name. If they were both Sephardi why did they give their son the Ashkenazi form of the name? Maybe I have muddled it up but it seems unclear.
  • "She was a Christian; he converted from Judaism.[20] He remained a practising Roman Catholic until 1967, when he left the faith." I read this at first that he converted her to Christianity until I looked more closely and noticed the semi-colon. Also I would spell out that he did not just leave the faith but returned to Judaism.
  • "He was sounded out by an American visitor influential in music in the US" Is the visitor's name not known?
  • Redrawn to include the name. (Mentioned later in the former version, but now moved up.) Tim riley talk
  • "Then for a year he and his family were, as he put it, virtually prisoners in the US because of new legislation.[60] He had taken American citizenship in 1940 and held an American passport since then; under the new law the authorities refused to renew his and his family's passports." I am not sure whether this is misleading. According to [43] he was refused a passport because of his left-wing views. According to Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 it prevented him travelling without a passport (rather than allowing the authorities to refuse to renew it).
  • The source is unequivocal: "The Americans refused to renew our passports on account of the McCarren/Walter bill, and for a year I was virtually a prisoner". As to his political views, I suppose working even as a musician in communist Hungary might have made him anathema to the more rabid McCarthyites, but the responsible official in Washington recorded that Klemperer was "clear from a security standpoint". He had political views, but Heyworth describes them as of minor importance compared to his artistic principles: for instance he conducted the memorial concert in Amsterdam for the conductor Willem Mengelberg – whom he revered as a major champion of Mahler's music – despite the fact that Mengelberg was disgraced and exiled for his collaboration with the Nazis: "Once more, Klemperer's artistic allegiances had taken precedence over political issues", says Heyworth. Tim riley talk
  • Hmm. I am not convinced. "on account of the McCarren/Walter bill" is different from "under the new law", the wording in the Wiki article. "on account of" could mean that as the law forbade people travelling abroad without passports, it gave the McCarthyites the chance to stop people they disliked from travelling, not that it gave them a new power to withdraw passports, which is what the Wiki article says. "under the law" does not make sense if he was clear from a security standpoint. Ha. I am winning the battle to be the most pedantic!!! Dudley Miles (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another first-rate article, although it does seem to me not a fully rounded picture. It has nothing on his political views even though they were significant enough to get him in trouble with the American authorities and it gives the birth and death dates of his siblings but not his children. His wife's death is only mentioned in the infobox. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may be sailing close to the wind by including the dates of the siblings: I believe we are discouraged from adding people's dates to the text, though I should be delighted to learn that I am under a misapprehension. I've added a line about his wife's death. Thank you for your comments, Dudley: I think the text is the better for them. Tim riley talk 12:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I wrote above a first rate article, although as I also wrote above I do think a few extra details would give a fuller picture of his character. I would put the horsewhip and Schumann affair in the main text. I would also add a sentence about his politics and that they were of minor importance, citing Mengelberg memorial. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a few minor tweaks that should be uncontroversial, but feel free to revert if you disagree with them.

Support. I had my say at PR, and the article has been strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to show up after the hard work is done, but I did read through the whole thing for the first time since I looked it over at PR, and have nothing to complain about. I'll just reserve final judgement until after a source review is in (will add a request for that at WT:FAC)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such quick service with the SR from SN -- support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ian, for support here and input at PR. Tim riley talk 17:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

[In progress] SN54129 13:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) This version reviewed.[reply]

  • I wonder what year your OED reference is from?
  • A couple of chapters (Keene, Keller) need pp ranges for chapters.
  • Reid, unless a repr., is too early to have an ISBN; WorldCat will provide an OCLC.
  • I hadn't spotted that the Reid biography (a school prize circa 1968 in the case of my copy) was reprinted in the 1970s. (And I'm glad it was, because a later biography of Sargent by one Richard Aldous was ... well, well, perhaps I'd better leave the sentence unfinished.) You're right that an oclc is wanted here. Done. Tim riley talk 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Sackville before Schwarzkopf?
  • On reflection I think you're right: one gets infected by the barminess of the ODNB which insists that Sackville-West comes under W, not S, but it is wrong and you are right, I think. Moved. Tim riley talk 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicking to buggery, but your ISBNs are formatted in several ways.
  • Are they? I can't see anything wrong. Am looking straight through something obvious? I think I copied and pasted most of the ISBNs from WorldCat. Can you give me an example of what you boggle at? Tim riley talk 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • Apart from the formatting nitpicks, the sources themselves are of the highest quality, as one would expect from subject experts and reputable publishers alike, which comprise the sources used.
  • A search of the relevant databases reveals no significant works that one would expect to find in a comprehensive biography of the topic (even Chichton's obit. spans less than 2 pages, for example), as much of that which is unused are reviews of his pieces rather than of the man himself. Conversely, nothing has been used that would appear overly tangential. You might, perhaps, find something relevant in the selection of newspaper cuttings you link to in 'External links#; the odd primary source is acceptable, of course.
    A good read—thanks. SN54129 14:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dear fellow, all is well. Interesting about Sackville—it never occurred to me that the W would take precedence! All else is minutiae, so obvs, passing source review. Over to Ian, then to reign terror and destruction! Again, nice article! SN54129 16:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would Wilde have put it? "There is only one thing in the world worse than having a reputation [good or ill...!] and that is not having a reputation"...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

This has been picked over by those far more expert than I, so the following comments are more to show I've read it than reflecting any real concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lotte Lehmann and Elisabeth Schumann— perhaps precede with "sopranos"?
  • Sanatorium—maybe a link for this increasing obscure word?
  • He settled in Zürich, and obtained German citizenship and right of residency in Switzerland—what's the relevance of German citizenship to being able to live in Switzerland?
  • None, I think. It isn't clear from the sources why OK took German citizenship. I'm guessing that having been born German he wished to resume that nationality, despite having his main home in Switzerland, but I don't honestly know. Tim riley talk 08:57, 10 March 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) 15 March 2023 [44].

Martinus (son of Heraclius)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a caesar of the Byzantine Empire, a brother of one of my previous FA's, David. Like his brother, he was tied to dynastic intrigue surrounding an incestuous marriage and preferred succession. He never lived to be emperor in his own right, but instead either died in the process of being emasculated or survived to live out the rest of his life in obscurity on Rhodes. As a consequence of being less important, there is less to say about him than of his brother, but I belive there is enough for it to pass FAC. I will note that there is significant amounts of info that could be pulled from the David article to expand contexts, but I was worried about losing focus; happy to pull such over if editors feel it would benefit the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review the only image's licensing is OK, but it sandwiches and is too small to read clearly. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Hopefully fixed; expanded image and moved to the side. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to remove the Heraclian Dynasty banner, given that Martinus is not in it? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would remove any navbox that does not have the article linked. (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • I would briefly insert a definition for caesar. Admittedly, it is a strange term and could be confusing to unfamiliar readers.
    Done
  • "Heraclius left the Byzantine Empire to two of Martinus' brothers, Constantine III and Heraclonas" When did this happen? And why did he leave then the throne? Did he die? Abdicate?
    Done
  • "to make" sounds somewhat coloquial; perhaps try "to install" and then adjust the surrounding grammar as necessary.
    Done.
  • "Valentinus seized Constantinople regardless..." There is nothing before this sentence that indicates that he intended on taking Constantinople.
    Inserted "Across from Constantinople" when I say he marched to Chalcedon; do you think that is sufficient?
  • Trivial matter: but maybe mention that Heraclius and Martina were married in the History section?
    Done
  • Define nobilissimus briefly: maybe try "Martinus was declared a nobilissimus, one of the highest imperial titles, under Heraclius..."
    Went with "a high courtly title"
  • Please adjust all {{circa}} templates in the article to read as, {{circa|638}} not {{circa}}638.
    Done.
  • Link papyrus?
    Done.

More to follow in a few minutes. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • By chance, was Martinus named after his mother? Just a thought.
    Figured this was the case but was unable to find a source for it; a redoubled search (I basically just used variations of "named for" in quotes) has turned up that this is true; will add it once it finishes downloading from not-Libgen.
  • I'm sure there's a good reason for this that I'm not picking up on, but why does the lead and infobox say that Martinus became caesar in c. 638 if the History section provides much evidence that it was in 639?
    Fuller expanation in the lede; I've changed it to circa 639 in the infobox for simplicity.
  • "This could be seen as a reaction to Pyrrhos bypassing David and Martinus after the death of Heraclius" In what way did he 'bypass' them? I'm a little lost.
    The primary source is very unclear on what this means, and PbmZ cites it directly with little explanation; I think it means that he basically just started ignoring them and making his own decisions, but it's not really clear, so I've removed it.
  • Link will?
    Done
  • Ditto with regent?
    Done
  • "On 20/24 April or 26 May 641, Constantine died of an advanced case of tuberculosis, although some supporters of Constantine alleged that Martina had him poisoned..." You can replace "some supporters of Constantine" with "some of his supporters".}}}
    Done.
  • "under the regency of Martina" Ditto, you can replace this with "under her regency".
    Done.
  • "demanding that Patriarch Pyrrhus must crown Constans II as emperor" This sounds strange; I think you should delete "must".
    Done.
  • Link crown with Coronation of the Byzantine emperor.
    Done
  • Link abdicate?
    Done.
  • "Martina, now in a truly desperate situation, offered the military further donatives, recalled an influential patron of Valentinus, Philagrius, from his exile in Africa, and offered Valentinus the title of comes excubitorum (count of the excubitors)." The paragraph never quite explain why Martina was doing these things?
    Explained that the latter two were negotiation pieces, and explained the first as "gifts or bribes" (I'm not sure it's ever really
  • "Despite these offers..." What offers? It sounds more like Martina merely capitulated to his requests.
    Changed to "overture"
  • "Valentinus entered the city shortly thereafter" Which city? Based on the lead, is it Constantinople?
    Whoops, added.
  • I think Political mutilation in Byzantine culture would be appropriate to link somewhere, maybe "nose cut off".
    Done.
  • Add ALT text to your image?
    Done.
  • [[Category:7th-century Byzantine emperors]] seems odd, seeing as Martinus was not an emperor himself.
    Removed.

That's all I've got. A fascinating short read. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...from c. 638–September/October 641 The habitual phrase would be "from c. 638 to 641" in a first sentence in the lead. Based on the main text, I understand "c. 639" would be a better starting year.
    Done.
    I slightly rephrased the first sentence.
  • Under Heraclius, Martinus was elevated to caesar in c. 638 That he was made caesar is mentioned in the first sentence. I assume he was made caesar by his father.
    Done.
  • Martinus was the son of Emperor Heraclius and Empress Martina. Mention that Martina was her husband's niece and second wife. I assume Martinus was not their first son.
    Done.
  • Martinus was born to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and Empress Martina at an unknown date. Mention that Martina was her husband's niece and second wife. Also mention that their marriage give rise to opposition by the clergy. List Heraclius sons (both by his first wife and his second wife) to introduce them before they are mentioned as caesars, co-emperors and emperors.
    Done.
  • Introduce Constantine III as Martinus's half-brother, and Heraclonas as Martinus's elder full brother.
    Done.
  • Valentinus ... cut off Martinus' nose and emasculated him... I doubt that Valantinus was the executor. I think everything that happened to Martinus could be summarize in a new sentence: "Martinus was dismembered and exiled to Rhodes."
    Done.
  • That he died likely soon after his fall, should also be mentioned in the lead.
    Done.
  • ...the later historian and Emperor Constantine VII I assume you want to write either "the later historian Emperor Constantine VII" or "the later historian and emperor Constantine VII".
    Done.
  • Introduce John of Nikiu.
    Done.
  • Introduce Pyrrchus of Constantinople as Patriarch.
    Done.
  • Introduce Constantine III as a son of Heraclius and his first wife.
    Done in family bit.
  • Do we know at what age Constantine III and Heraclonas succeeded their father? If Constantine III was an adult why did he need a regent?
    Done; the regency thing is difficult, but it seems possible that Heraclius wanted to favor her and ensure her a position in the future, and did so by naming her regent, even if Constantine should have been capable of serving as such for his half-brother.
    Treadgold writes that Martina was named as regent for Heraclonas in case Constantine died. (Treadgold, p. 307)
    @Borsoka: I've amended the text to say that Heraclius wanted Constantine and Heraclonas both to consider Martina as their empress and mother, and later on explained the whole regency business as applying to Heraclonas; an interesting distinction, given that, in both scenarios, she is technically serving as regent, as the two are nominally equal, and indeed she exercised much power. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...leaving Heraclonas... Consider rephrasing: "...leaving her son Heraclonas..."
    Done.
  • Another son, Theodosius, suffered no punishment as he was deaf-mute, and thus was not in a position to threaten the throne. Delete. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • @Borsoka: Done all, thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this new episode of your series of "Forgotten Byzantine Royals". It is a nice article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Src review

[edit]

WIP. SN54129 17:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) This version reviewed. Inc. spot checks. SN54129 17:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's necessary to have your 'Primary sources' section over four columns when that's the same number of entries; ironically, I'd suggest that it makes it possibly easier to miss the trailing three, and with only four entries, one column will not breach WP:WHITESPACE. SN54129 19:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Your Garland '02 and Bellinger are missing publisher location information.
    Added.
  • Lille needs ISBN.
    It's pulled from a template, which doesn't really use an ISBN because the online version doesn't strictly have one. Perhaps a DOI might be used, but it links directly to it and is a name recognized publication, so I don't know that that would be useful.
  • Format ISBNs consistently
    Done.
  • All the PmbZ refs check out (not necessarily, that surprisingly) per text attribution.
  • 2 Tougher: supports naming after Martina;' Tougher 4a, b, c: mother's death, his full quiver of sons, elevation of Heraclonus.
  • All DIR entries check out, even if it is a Wordpress blog (was?), its claims to being peer-reviewed are irrefutable, it seems.
    I have never understood why such a useful and high-quality source hosts itself on such an amateur-looking site.
  • Alexander chackes out at nine sones
  • 6 Spatharakis 1976, p. 19: checks out at 10 sons.
  • But note that Alexander 230 fn58 also cites another source as the number being 11, so I recommend recasting the sentence aswith sources estimating nine, 10 or 11 children with the three cites at the back.
    Done.
  • 15 Treadgold, 308: supports allegation of poisoning. Likewise 17 a,b: Mob.
Other
  • I c/e'd a contraction out.
  • Be consistent between s's and s'.
    Done.
That's that. Nice article; congratulations on beating out the top twenty :D SN54129 19:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for the review, all points should be done or responded to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine

[edit]

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 11:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • tertiary heir may not be immediately understood. I for one had never encountered the term before, and googling it indicates a) that it is rare and b) that it is a technical legal term for a grandchild of a primary heir. This in turn means that as a gloss of caesar it is incorrect, since anybody could be named caesar, and a caesar could indeed be the primary heir, if there were no co-emperors, and none of the caesares in this article were Heraclius' great-grandsons. I much prefer glossing caesar as something like '...elevated to caesar, a junior imperial title which placed him on the line of succession, at some point...'
    I hadn't considered it as a legal term, just "they're an heir, but usually tertiary to a co-emperor by this time"; Done.
  • across from Constantinople per WP:POPE, 'across the Bosporus strait from the imperial capital, Constantinople,'
    Done.
    I added something ;)
    Done.
  • to force Martina to install Constans II...Valentinus seized Constantinople regardless 'regardless' implies that Constans II was installed, but we are not told that. Better 'and forced Martina to install Constans II'
    Done.
  • dismembered and exiled dismemberment is fatal. 'Mutilated' is I think the word you're looking for, which should be linked to Political mutilation in Byzantine culture as well.
    Done.
History section
  • Instead of 'History', perhaps 'Life' as title?
    Done.
  • Per above on the gloss of caesar.
    Done.
  • What is CPR XXIII 35?
    Done.
  • Why Nicolas Gonis when the reference uses the transliteration 'Nikolaos'? And is he likely to have an article?
    Done
  • , who would come to replace him as Patriarch under Constans II. is this relevant here?
    Removed.
  • recalling an influential patron...and offered him 'recalling an influential patron...and offering him', or period, and then 'For this reason, she recalled an influential patron...and offered him'.
    Done.
  • The gloss for comes excubitorum is correct, but won't help anyone who doesn't know who/what the excubitors are and why their count was important. Perhaps 'offered him the title of comes excubitorum, a very influential post that entailed command over the imperial bodyguard'?
    Done.
  • 'elevated Constans to sole emperor'
    Done.
  • Remove , where following, and replace with a full stop.
    Done.
Sources
  • All are high-quality sources, but am surprised not to find Kaegi's biography of Heralius among them.
    Seems to be an accident of happenstance; I also think I might just not have had the work at the time I first wrote these, as it was Haukurth that added it for the David article; I've added it in and cited it the part that directly relates to him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and wasn't going to fail it for that. But it should at least be in a 'further reading' section. Constantine ✍ 17:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of Grumel 1958 is obviously mangled, and it misses a language parameter.
    Done.
    Per this the title is 'Traité d'études byzantines. Tome 1, La chronologie'. You can also use the Gallica link.
    Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spatharakis 1976 needs to be capitalized
    Done.
  • Tougher 2019 is, as the title indicates, a collection of papers. Hence the author is not Tougher; she is the editor of the volume. Please identify the paper and its author.
    Sometimes I feel really dumb reading these and wondering how it didn't occur to me... Fixed.
    Can you also add the title of the paper and page range?
    Done.

That's it for a first pass. Constantine ✍ 12:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Done all; thank you for the review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:replied above, and one minor comment in addition:

  • The primary sources are mentioned (except for the De Ceremoniis) in the article body. So unless you link to specific editions of them, I'd say the section is redundant. And, having the primary sources as 'further reading' is odd, it seems to devalue them; if you want to keep this, I would simply call the section 'Primary sources'.
    Done.

Otherwise nothing to complain about :). Constantine ✍ 17:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Excellent. That leaves me with only the pleasant task of supporting. Nice work! Constantine ✍ 19:06, 13 March 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) 14 March 2023 [45].

Marriage License

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi

Marriage License is a painting that pushes on the standard assumptions about the limits of art and who it is for. You are more likely to see it on the walls of a midwestern grandmother's house rather than at MOMA. The man or woman on the street would call this painting art without skipping a beat, but art historians and philosophers of art would be more likely to disagree. To add a curve ball, MAD Magazine, yes that MAD Magazine, published a parody of the painting in 2004 that accurately predicted how the winds would shift on LGBTQ rights in American Culture.

Thank you to Ceoil, Premeditated Chaos and P-Makoto for your reviews. I think that the article now meets the standards to be an FA. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make comments after other peoples' comments are reviewed so I don't go about reinventing the wheel. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo' for Frye Frye's FAC. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 45.5 by 42.5 inches (116 cm × 108 cm) work [...] Clashes with the rest of the sentence. I recommend combining it with the sentence describing its present-day location. It makes sense to me to dispense with the space it occupies in meatspace if nothing more need be said about it in the lead.
    Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The painting is in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum and has been a part of three major exhibitions in 1955, 1972, and 1999. Why not cut "three" here?
    Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google shows me that MAD has at several times used parodies of Norman Rockwell's paintings to make comments about contemporary American society and politics. See this website for examples. Thus worth reworking the article to mention these covers, or at least not make the 2004 parody of this article as the only time MAD has done this.
    I can't find any sourcing that speaks to the other works in this series. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you revise the sentence about the 2004 version in the lead nonetheless? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He set up a studio where he continued to paint and provide illustrations for magazine covers and yearly Boy Scout calendars. "and continued" would suffice in place of "where he continued". This sentence is also missing a citation.
    done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The models for these were often drawn from the local community near where he lived. Big redundancy here. Suggest "were often drawn from his environs."
Now that's worse, but just "drawn from the local community" should be clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see the degree of expansion from GA to now. It was a very complete article already but now it's got some extra heft. I really find myself with minimal griping here.

That's it! Really, as I said, minimal griping mostly at this point due to the excellent work from other reviewers leaving little for me to notice and comment on. As always, happy to discuss any of my suggestions. (As a side note, if you have the interest I'd love to see you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Widows of Culloden/archive1). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood

[edit]

Comments

SC

[edit]
Commission and models
Reception
  • "Popular-art historian": I've never seen this hyphenated before, and I'm guessing you're trying to avoid him looking like an art historian who is popular? "Popular culture historian" gets away from the issue with the blue link, particularly as Finch comments on pop culture, rather than just pop art (or "Historian of popular art/culture" would also suffice – as long as the hyphen is removed)
    You are correct with what the hyphen is trying to do. I went with the link. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deborah Solomon, Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram": " Deborah Solomon and Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram" – a comma shouldn't replace the conjunction
    The three people are "Deborah Solomon, Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton". I will think about how to replace it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, OK. I'm not sure why not just "Deborah Solomon and Dave Ferman of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton": doesn't that work as well - or am I missing something? - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

Overall it feels a bit 'thin', both in terms of scope and depth.

  • I would like to see details of the medium, size, current location (including any history of the provenance), themes, time it took to paint, examination of the techniques used (if there was anything 'special' he did), details of major exhibitions in which it was shown, etc
  • Christopher Finch's Norman Rockwell's America has some good description of the work and discusses (albeit briefly) the theme of young love, and there seems to be a lack of academic studies on the piece. I'm not an expert by any means, so don't know the literature around Rockwell or his works, but the article seems to be very thin on these sources.
    • I got it on Archive.org and I will see what I can find. I think I skipped over Finch's other works after looking at one due to thinking that they all had roughly the same material.

      If you can forgive me for editorializing, I have some thoughts on this subject after working on this project for the last few months. Art history has a Rockwell problem where they see his paintings as not real art and therefore not worthy of study. I wish Eaton was writing today and therefore took a more intersectional approach because she spends paragraphs actively dodging the reason home economics is more comfortable with Rockwell than art history: class. I will do more digging, but I feel like I have hit a dead end. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • No problem. I'm not an art expert even in the widest sense, let alone when considering Rockwell. There is a tiny bit in The Faith of America by Fred Bauer (he says Rockwell "struggled" for 33 days to finish the painting) which should be considered for inclusion. If the scholars and academics have overlooked Rockwell and there isn't much in-depth analysis, then that's fine (and more fool them). - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this all help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’ve been watching the addition of the new material - it’s in much better shape now. As there are a couple of people reviewing, I’ll wait until they’re done (particularly the art experts Ceoil and Johnbod) and if they’re happy with the art side, I’ll go over the text again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going over this again, following the extensive restructure. It's looking very good now, with the additional information filling out the various bits I would expect to read about.

Lead
Description
Commission and models
Process
Provenance

That's all from me on this second run-through. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, driving by

[edit]
  • For an FA, you need more than "is a painting" as regards technique. Also, the size and current owner and location. All in the first lead para. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I will add an infobox, much to my dislike for that information. Looking over a random sample of FAs, none of them include all of that in the first paragraph. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's absolutely no need to include an infobox, and these basic pieces of info should still be in the lead text anyway (almost certainly, someone else will add one unless you add a note asking people not to). You're claiming there are painting FAs that don't include the size, technique, location and ownership in the lead? Examples please. It's not like the lead is already long - it's only 3 paras. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnbod/SchroCat: Can you please take another look? I fleshed things out a bit more and I hope it alleviates your concerns -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, certainly. If you are going to do painting FACs you should check out and follow MOS:ART:
      • "The lead section on individual works of art should give at least the following information (in roughly this order): Name(s)/title(s) of work, artist, date, type and materials, subject, nation or city of origin, present location." and "Measurements should always be given for a work that is the article subject, but are not usually needed in captions".
        I find this to be an incredible amount of micromanagement compared to the rest of the MOS. But here are where each of these pieces of information can be found
        • Name(s)/title(s) of work: "Marriage License"
        • artist: "by [...] Norman Rockwell"
        • date: "created for the cover of the June 11, 1955 edition of The Saturday Evening Post"
        • type and materials: "is an oil painting"
        • subject: "depicts a young man and woman filling out a marriage license application at a government building in front of a bored-looking clerk"
        • nation or city of origin: "American illustrator"
        • present location: "in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum"
        The measurements have been moved to the Description --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For works belonging to permanent public collections, avoid "... currently resides in", "is currently in the Louvre", "is on display at", "is located in", "is in the collection of", and similar phrases." -re "The painting is currently in the collection of the Norman Rockwell Museum ..."
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exhibitions should all be together I think, not some in the lead and others below (move them all down)
        There are only three exhibitions and they are all mentioned in the provenance --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Composition" section is only partly about the Composition (visual arts), and would be better called "Description".
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As a well-known Rockwell painting, Marriage License has been used as a muse for other works" - usually only people are "muses".
        Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you say anything about the process by which the painting was significantly reduced in size for the reproduction, and the printing process used?
        Included --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed all of these. The sketch got a note --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't! Please check over. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went point by point through your comments. The lack of a school/movent mostly comes from the sources. To call it Regionalism (art) would be original research. The captions follow MOS:ART --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all sorted, except the measurements should be in the lead per the MOS (I'd settle for in the lead pic caption). Very many people never read beyond the lead. I don't know why you seem to think I asked for a "school" - I didn't, and it certainly shouldn't be Regionalism (art). Rockwell's paintings like this are very clearly a continuation of Victorian sentimental domestic genre painting, which is why the critical establishment is reluctant to take them seriously, but don't let's get into that. I'm also very dubious about the alleged influence from Vermeer (could Rockwell ever have seen any street backgrounds by him, except in murky b+w repro - I don't think so) but you appear to have sources for that. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I added the measurements to the second sentence of the leade. I ended up not liking how long the caption got with both english and metric units. The school was pulled from my relook through MOS:ART's guidance for leads. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. My comments dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (Support)

[edit]

Overall very good, esp in last few days

  • As said on the talk, its hard to understand the tonal contrast between the couple and official from the very low resolution lead image. I would go for for two crops (the couple and your man) and FU claims - this would make understanding far, far more clear on a scan if for eg it gets to main page, which it obviously will. Especially, even clicking through, its not possible with the current img to see how the "wearied look on his face contrasts starkly with the excited couple"
  • I don't know what this means, or at least it begs a lot of questions: Starting in the 1930s, Rockwell created his paintings from 50 to 100 reference photos.
  • Have rephrased the reception somewhat - I think the sources were saying he was influenced by Vermeer, rather than comparable to Vermeer (which would be ridiculous given his -unfair imo- reputation amongst highbrow critics as a sentimental hack). Do "Solomon and Ferman compare the paintings positively" really?
  • I see you revered the templated converting cm to inches. Why
  • can you put dates after The Letterman, Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train, Before the Date, and The University Club
  • Peggy Lahart, a nurse at the Riggs center, was approached to pose for a painting depicting a bride-to-be - Rockwell approached
  • In the catalog for the 1972 retrospective exhibition of Rockwell's works - Rockwell's 1972 retrospective
  • philosopher of art Marcia Muelder Eaton - never heard of such a discipline (outside of aesthetics), and dodgy given she is a red link.
  • Butting in outside my section to note that plenty of female academics are redlinks and shouldn't be; it's not fair to hold that against them. She's a bit too old for much web presence, but appears to have reasonable academic qualifications and has published multiple books on the philosophy of aesthetics. I certainly wouldn't call her work "dodgy." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, stricken, but it had nothing to do with female, more "philosopher of art"; "philosopher of aesthetics" is better; I am annoying myself with being cautious of definitions of with high art, and taste better includes lovey objects such as this. Ceoil (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the work since last comments; especially the addition of the crop, am a Support. Interesting article, on an artist had not given thought to before, so thanks v. much for that. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking off tomorrow afternoon to finish working on the comments above -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • P/PP error in FNs 3, 41.
  • Suggest expanding the two-letter state abbreviations to full state names as these are not well understood by non-US readers.
    • Not so sure about this, and it goes against the usual FA standard. Atlanta, GA (as used in this article) for eg seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's certainly optional; I suggested it because I've been asked to change these in my own source lists. I've been in the US for long enough that I know them all now, but I could understand an Australian not knowing which state MN or NE referred to. The ones used here are FL, PA, MA, and TX, which are probably among the best-known (though MA could be mistaken for a couple of others). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fair enough. My concern is based on a fear of being called out on very difficult to spell state names such as Connecticut or Massachusetts, although I realise I'm unusually poor and that kind of stuff. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I spelled out the state names, but kept DC. District of Columbia would confuse people more --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for FN1 doesn't work for me -- it just brings up the terms-of-use dialog.
  • The archive link for FN2 doesn't work for me, though since newspapers.com is already an archive I don't think you need it.
  • The title of FN 39 should be "Rockwell Exhibit Stirs Memories".
  • I had a think about whether FNs 1 and 16 are high enough quality for what they're citing here. In both cases I think they're OK, but it seems certain that they were just relying on whatever other resources they had, rather than researching the answers themselves. If you can replace any of these cites with material from the scholarly sources you have that would be best, but I think they're OK as they are, since the newspapers are themselves edited and fact-checked.
    This is an excellent point, great to see verbalised, and should be on the standard checklist for source reviews (although it places a large research burden on reviewers). Very often I start with broad survey articles and books and then mine their footnotes. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only ever seen the size in the collection's catalog, but the use of it for the Provenance is rather minor. It could be removed and change the reader's understanding very little. Ryan 1983 is one of the best sources for the creation. Some of it can be replaced, but he has much more detail. The modes being from stockbridge can be easily swapped. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see these and I will try to get to them tomorrow. I had to finish up a GA review this evening -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have replied -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Looks good now, and I agree about DC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass


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) 14 March 2023 [46].

Richard Roose

[edit]
Nominator(s): SN54129 20:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A King jealous. A bishop nearly poisoned. Servants dying. And one man―who may or may not have been guilty―was boiled alive for it. It took two hours. Meet Richard Roose, of whom almost nothing is known but his purported crime and grotesque end. Also meet a periphery of nasty characters ranging from the King who wanted another wife to a father who wanted a royal brother-in-law... and who both wanted a bishop dead.
FACers, feel free to have a look at R. Roose esq., who hopefully deserves a bronze star if nothing else. The article underwent a thorough GA review by CaroleHenson―thanking you, Carole, much appreciated as ever, a couple of years ago.
Many thanks to all who look in here! Cheers, SN54129 20:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • There are a lot of "Anne Boleyn"s or just "Anne"s knocking around: as she's not a fictional character, this should be "Boleyn" (except where there may be confusion with the rest of her family)
Very important point, I've drastically reduced the Annes. SN54129 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "claimed it was intended to be a joke—believing he was incapacitating his fellow servants rather than killing anyone, he claimed": because of the first word, you don't need the last two.
  • "Fisher himself was already unpopular": you don't need "himself"
  • "annul his marriage to his wife, Katherine" -> "annul his marriage to Katherine" (he couldn't annual his marriage to anyone else!)
  • "Fisher himself was executed": again you don't need "himself"
  • "by many historians to": Don't think you need to link historians
  • "the great treason": Not sure you need "great"
Well, this is really to differentiate the "great" attainders of men like Cromwell, Gardiner, Cranmer, Thos More etc, from the hundreds of ordinary trials and executions (ordinary monks, abbots etc) during the reformation.
Background
  • Link Henry VIII on first mention
  • It may be worth a footnote to explain what praemunire is, given it is such an uncommon term
Done, hopefully not overly detailed?
  • "several suggestive incidents during these months": which months?
  • "angered both King Henry": just "Henry" will suffice
  • "defended [Queen Katherine] without": just "Katherine" will suffice
  • "Fisher's most recent biographer" – that could fall out of date without anyone noticing
Dated

Done to the start of poisoning – more later. – SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Poisonings of 18 February
  • "Bishop Fisher": just "Fisher"
  • "mortally enfected": maybe a {{sic}} template before helpful hands come and correct the spelling?
Helpful hands, the bane of our lives!
Theories
  • "extant source being the crown's own Act" -> "extant source being the act of parliament" – gets rid of both the unnecessary "own" and the unneeded capital A
  • "Bernard also iterates": this pretty much repeats the previous couple of sentences – I'm not sure you need so much repetition
The King's plan
  • "it is not impossible": or "it is possible"?
  • "machiavellian": capitalise to "Machiavellian", according to the OED
  • "Queen,[12] by parties": comma shouldn't be used as an alternative for "and" or "or", which it is here.
Anne Boleyn or her father's plan
  • Title should be "Boleyn or her father's plan"
  • '"the king has done well to show...': you need to close off the quote
  • "Bellany argues that": who? (Later, in the Aftermath section, you introduce him as "the medievalist Alastair Bellany", so this should move up)
All good and done, hopefully.
Condemned by the King
  • The Agas map can be enlarged a bit – it's small and the article is thin on images
  • "Rather, while Roose remained imprisoned" You can use "he" here

Done to the end of Condemned by the King; more to come later. SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Bill expanding
  • "Bishop Fisher": just Fisher
  • "Treason have led historians": "has led"
  • "his commitment to common law": need a link to common law
Execution
  • [Two hours?? Bloody hell!]
Absolutely grotesque. They must've taken him out a few times, surely...
Aftermath
  • "Hall[note 13]": it seems odd to have a note on Hall's historiography this far on in the article – it may be better at the first reference
  • "curious event taking place shortly": "curious event that took place shortly"
  • There's an ugly sandwiching between the imaging and the quotebox. On my desktop it's not too bad, but on my laptop the text squeezes to four words wide; on my iPad, it's one or two words only. It may be better to incorporate this as a blockquote, rather than a quotebox.
Done.
  • "Cardinal Fisher": just Fisher
  • "reverendity": you need to contact the OED to arrange for it to be included as a new word
Ah well! Holiness, perhaps?
  • "it was an unfortunate for Fisher": superfluous word in there
  • "with "hysteria" over poisoning continued for many years": 1. Do we need that in quote marks (if so, it needs to be attributed in the form "with what Bellamy describes as"); 2. There's a problem with the tenses
  • "Davy, died in the same way for": "Davy, was executed in the same way for"?

Done to the start of Perception. More tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off

Of contemporaries
  • "repealed, Bacon could still": who?
  • The sentence "Edward Coke, Chief Justice under King James I, said that Roose's punishment was "too severe to live long";[69] although, as Bellany notes, "this statute had long been repealed, Bacon could still describe poisoning as a kind of treason"[61] in 1615, on account of his view that it was an attack on the body politic" is a long and twisting one that seems to forget what it is doing. May be worth reframing it?
  • "He touched on": who? Bacon or Bellany
This entire para was so garbled I rewrote it, hopefully makes some sense now.
Historians
  • "pervade...the cultural" – needs to align with WP:ELLIPSES
  • "Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton": "The Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton"
  • "seen as"an age": needs a space
Cultural depiction
  • "if he ever speaks." Needs "about the incident" or similar at the end
Notes
  • 12 – "Rooses's was" -> Roose's
  • 17 – "disembowlment" -> disembowelment
Refs
  • Really, really anally retentive of me, but you have (in multiple places) p. 895 n.6 – with a space after "p.", but none after "n.". I can't see anything in the MOS that says to go for spaces or not, but I think spaces after all (or at least consistency) would be best.
  • 28, 39: Wilson 2014a, p. l n.3 – is that page l (L) or is it meant to be 1?
  • 32 Bridgett 1890, p. 213 n.. (Take out the full stop in the sfn)
  • 52: Bridgett 1890, p. 214 n.. Ditto

That's my lot – I hope they help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, SchroCat, I hope as you like it. You wrote a better article :) much appreciated as ever! SN54129 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Feel free to point out of you think the title is erroneous since very little of it is biographical—unsurprisingly since we know next to nothing about the so-called subject!—and mostly about a series events and their contexts. For the record, I suspect a page move is in order. But am certainly willing to see what the consensus builds up to here, if anything: I'll be asking all, of course. SN54129 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Indeed a mouthful; I was thinking 1531 attacks on the Bishop of Rochester or something, but no worries! SN54129 12:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had searched for "Source review", clearly old age is catching up with me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Buidhe, as ever. Any views on the page title? SN54129 12:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

You certainly know how to pick your tales of gruesome intrigue! What an appalling way to go! I do, however, have some concerns.

  • The title doesn't really match the scope of the article. I'm not sure what else you could call it that wasn't overly verbose but sufficiently descriptive. Perhaps Execution of Richard Roose?
  • Totally agree, 100%, with your assessment.
What about "The Boiling of Richard Roose". I can live with it given it was all so sensationalist at the time - it was what people were taling about- and he *was* boiled. Obvs the current article title indicating a straightforward bio isn't right. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might be a more common search term than "Execution" of. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Execution of" probably complies better with policies and guidelines, but I could live with "boiling of", but not *the* boiling of per WP:THE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty-five footnotes in 5,000 words sees massively excessive and the vast majority of them (while interesting) are digressions away from Roose, the poisoning, and his execution. You're almost writing a separate article on poisoning and treason in 16th-century England in the footnotes. I'd read an article like that but this isn't the place for it.
  • Ahh  :) Right. I've reduced the number from 25 (1,316 words) to 8 (189 words), shortening those that remained, mostly directing the reader to the sources or clarifying them. Better?
  • You have references in the middle of sentences in quite a few places, which can be distracting. Can these be bundled at the end of sentences or paragraphs where they're not supporting anything controversial that needs to be immediately checkable?
  • Moved a few, was able to remove a couple absolutely. But to be honest, I shite it at the thought of moving cites too far from where the information is. Too many {{cn}}-heads around to sleep easy on that.
  • There are a lot of unattributed quotes in the prose, for example (there are more further down; this is only as far as the Aftermath section):
    • "in case [Fisher] caught some disease as he had before"
    • became "mortally enfected"
    • As a result, the "celebrated"
    • "which enabled the crown to strike down quickly individuals it perceived as particularly threatening and dangerous, and to do so without recourse to the common-law courts"
    • enacted a host of capital statutes"
    • "symbolic retribution"
    • "tyll he was dede". (This would be a prime candidate for rewriting in your own words)
  • Attributed quotes, removed a couple, rewritten and recast others. Reduced over all dependency.
  • The only place you mention that two people died is in two quotes, one rather lengthy and one written in the English of the day. Would be good to mention it in plain modern English in my opinion.
  • Named them in the lead now.
  • And a lot of quotes in general that might be better in your own words. The number of quotes rather hampers readability.
  • Reduced reliance on quotes by two-thirds, moved about 24 into wikivoice.
  • He was placed under examination sounds like a euphemism; also, I'm guessing the unreliability of confessions from torture was known even in the 16th century?
  • Removed euphemism; made it clear he was being tortured. But how/where to insert material re forced confessions? Have got a couple of sources for it, but it was still common...
  • Despite its cruelty, it was seen as politically useful to have a law[by whom?]
  • Cromwell, mainly  :) clarified.
  • Ditto In what has been suggested.
  • Removed as not particularly contentious.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again Harry, if you could take a look—in your own time of course—I think you'll find I've interpreted your suggestions pretty stringently. And thanks for em! By the way, what about paras 2 and three in the 'Perception: of contemporaries' section...? SN54129 18:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks much better now. Well done on making some quite big changes so rapidly! And let me know how the potential treason/poison article goes. I'm still not sure about the title but I don't know what other concise and accurate title you could give it, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Harrry,muchly appreciate your critiques; they made for a great improvement. And a great idea about the new article!
    I rather fancy your suggestion of Execution of Richard Roose, as it goes—it avoids any hint towards being a biography while focussing on what he's famous for—execution—and, indeed, what the legal shenanigans was also focussed on—the law and its repeal, which stem from the killings/his execution rather than him. With the @FAC coordinators: permission, though, I might leave the vexed question to the end and ask everyone who looks in. Thanks again! SN54129 17:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please: if there is to be a name change, could it happen after this nom is closed and the bot has done its thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi all, oddly enough I just happened to skim the article for the first time before looking in at how the FAC was going, and I admit that reading the lead alone I felt the current title didn't really match the content and was wondering whether any of the reviewers thought the same. Clearly they do! That said, it's simpler if the agreed re-titling takes place after the FAC is closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "(including is real name)" => "(including his real name)"
  • "may have been been Fisher's household cook, or less likely, a friend of the cook—at Fisher's residence in Lambeth." => "may have been been Fisher's household cook, or less likely, a friend of the cook, at Fisher's residence in Lambeth."
  • Done.
  • "could have been either hers or her father's responsibility" => "could have been either her or her father's responsibility"
  • Done.
  • "These two attacks, and the Roose's execution" => "These two attacks, and Roose's execution"
  • Done.
  • "established the English monarchs as head of the Church of England" => "established the English monarch as head of the Church of England"
  • Done.
  • "Fisher's crime of poisoning did not long outlive him, as it was repealed almost immediately by his son Edward VI." - pretty sure Edward was not Fisher's son
  • Doh! Clarified that it was Henry's act, and merged the two sentences?
  • "Historians often consider his executionas a watershed" => "Historians often consider his execution a watershed"
  • Done.
  • Sentence ending " praemunire" does not have a full stop
  • Done.
  • "The ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire, Eustace Chapuys wrote" => "The ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire, Eustace Chapuys, wrote"
  • Done.
  • "The suspicion at court, and the passion with which Fisher defended Katherine of Aragon angered" => "The suspicion at court and the passion with which Fisher defended Katherine of Aragon angered"
  • Done.
  • "from where most detail of the crime is from" - repetition of "from" doesn't read brilliantly
  • Good point; changed to "...from where most detail of the crime" is drawn"?.
  • "and, and instructed his household" - ??
  • Clarified!
  • "In 1615, both Coke and Francis Bacon, during their prosecution of Robert Carr and Frances Howard for the poisoning of Thomas Overbury referred" => "In 1615, both Coke and Francis Bacon, during their prosecution of Robert Carr and Frances Howard for the poisoning of Thomas Overbury, referred"
  • Done.
  • Thanks very much, Chris, for these pointers, all of which I've actioned, hopefully to your satisfaction. While you're here, d'you have any views on the suggested page move? Thanks again—and let me know if you spot anything else! Cheers!, SN54129 13:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
  • Swapped my Eltons round.
  • Archive.today links won't work for links requiring subscription
  • But so complicated! And now something else for citation bot to edit-war over :)
  • The bot prefers cite ODNB, you'll be fine ;-)
  • In several instances material is attributed inline to Hall but cited to Bridgett - can you explain?
  • Hall was a contemporary of Fisher's and wrote his first Life of; Bridgett is citing him. Does that need a separate template or inline acknowledgement? "Bridgett, citing Hall..." etc?
  • Yes please.
  • The OCLC link provided for Burke appears to be a different edition from the one cited. Ditto Reynolds, check throughout. Also the publisher name for Burke has a typo.
  • Confirmed/adjusted where necessary all OCLCs; changed to Washbourne.
  • Re: Kesselring. While the merits of a PhD from Queen's University Ontario might be questioned (although not by me—they're clearly a respectable institution), K's supervisor is a clear subject expert and K. themself has gone on to publish in peer-reviewed journal in the field. In any case, the thesis is used on only one occasion. Ditto the Univ of Wisconsin-Madison, but I note that Stacy has published in respectable peer-reviewed journals both before and during/after publishing their doctorate.
  • Mantel formatting doesn't match other sources
  • Fixed ISBN
  • Published by a respectable theological publisher, later as Continuum then as Bloomsbury Academic; E. E. Reynolds was a leading expert on Sir Thomas More and founder of Moreana, today published by Univ Edinburgh Press.
  • @Nikkimaria: well, I thought it would get a bit repetitive if I had to say secondary source citing primary each time but if I cited the statement in both, but now I've added both sources, hopefully V is satisfied as the reader can look at either to find out what was said by whom. Helpful? Apologies for the repeated pings by the way. SN54129 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - do you consider your comments satisfactorily resolved? Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 March 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 March 2023 [47].

Battle of Saseno

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 10:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a naval clash between the Venetians and their perennial rivals, the Genoese, in which a Venetian trade convoy was intercepted and destroyed, via a clever ruse, during the War of Saint Sabas. It passed GA and the MILHIST ACR in 2020, and was already submitted for a first FAC in 2021, but it failed there due to me being unavailable to pursue its completion. I have already taken the comments there on board, and look forward to any further suggestions for improvement. Constantine ✍ 10:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "So far in the war, the Genoese had experienced" - worth mentioning how long it had been going on for? If it had been going on for only six weeks then Genoa having experienced only defeats would be a very different kettle of fish to if it had been going on for six years
    • Very good point, changed.
  • "The much more manoeuvreable Genoese galleys captured or sunk" => "The much more manoeuvreable Genoese galleys captured or sank"
    • Fixed.
  • "their construction had been funded by public funds" - any way to avoid that repetition?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Guelph nobles joined and attacked Grillo's house" => "The Guelph nobles joined together and attacked Grillo's house" as current wording reads like they both joined the house and attacked it
    • Fixed.
  • "The command of the convoy was entrusted to Michele Duaro or Doro" - I'd be tempted to move the alternative spelling of his name to a footnote to avoid any slight suggestion that you are talking about two different men
    • Done.
  • "Another galley was sent east; according to" - think that semi-colon should be a comma
    • Fixed.
  • "The Venetian sources claim that the departing crews sunk" => "The Venetian sources claim that the departing crews sank"
    • Fixed.
  • "ultimately Duaro preferred to save [...] to a doomed" - I think ""ultimately Duaro preferred saving [...] to a doomed"" would read better
    • Fixed.
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggested corrections, ChrisTheDude,! Anything else, even beyond FA requirements? Constantine ✍ 20:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Hi Constantine, I hope to get round to reviewing this. Before I do, could you confirm that all of the issues I brought up during the article's first nomination have been addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild! Had another look, and dealt with a few issues that were still outstanding, or possibly not entirely clear. There are a couple of points where I am unable to give an answer, notably an equivalent value for the plunder taken. I am still searching for a good source that would give an equivalence either in USD or in some sort of analogue (e.g. average wage). So far I have some sources about the 12th century, but nothing contemporary with events. Constantine ✍ 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my last, I managed to track down a reliable source with some contemporary numbers for the costs of ships, that offers a baseline for comparison. Constantine ✍ 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign words in the infobox also need to be in lang templates.
    • Fixed.
  • "free to attack the Venetian convoy". "The convoy"? This is the first we have heard of it. Perhaps "the" → 'a'?
    • Fixed.
  • "the obligation of keeping" → 'the obligation to keep'.
    • Fixed.
  • "the spring trade convoy to the Levant was left as the only outlet for the Venetian merchants' activities." "only"? What about the late-summer convoy?
    • Fixed.
  • "and swiftly headed south". I think you mean 'and headed swiftly south'.
    • Indeed, changed.
  • "The commander of the convoy, Duaro, appears to have made slow progress". Perhaps add 'Venetian' before "convoy", to help those who haven't been paying attention.
    • Excellent point, done.
  • "The Annales Ianuenses on the other hand reports that all the lighter ships were captured, apart from a nave, which was sunk, and a tarida which was lost to fire. On the other hand, the Roccafortis held firm." Perhaps avoid the repetition of "on the other hand".
    • Done
  • "100,000 Genoese pounds". Consider putting the price comparisons in the main article.
    • Done.
  • "a doomed stand to the end". The usual phrase is 'fight to the end'.
    • Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gog the Mild, your comments have been addressed. Thanks for your time, twice over :) Constantine ✍ 07:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It's a pleasure to see another of your high quality articles at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will begin reviewing soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "where Duaro rallied his crews for safety" the meaning of this is not quite clear, I think. From just the lede I would assume that the commander motivated this singular ship so strongly that they fought off enemies, but it doesn't encapsulate that he gave up on the other ships in the process. Perhaps "where Duaro rallied the crews of his fleet for safety, abandoning the other ships in the process.", or something similar.
    • Good point, changed.
  • "rather than by private contractors (usually the rich noble merchants who ran the city) as was normal practice" feel like commas may be more useful than the parenthesis in this situation.
    • Hmmm, commas don't really work, as this is a clarification; have replaced with emdashes though.
  • @Cplakidas: That's all I have; an excellent article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iazyges and thanks :). I have addressed the two troublespots. Constantine ✍ 17:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...Romania (the lands of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire)... The term "Romania" refers to the Latin Empire of Constantinople, according to the cited source.
    • "Romania" was the lands of the Byzantine Empire, which was (supposed to be) supplanted by the Latin Empire. Hence Partitio Romaniae. 'Romania' thus meant the Greek East in its late Byzantine form. Have added a more accurate citation from Lane to that effect.
  • Consider mentioning that the Venetians had a commercial monopoly in the Latin Empire.
    • Done. Have used the opportunity to add a bit of context as well.
  • Grillo set sail in June, and headed swiftly south towards Malta... Define Malta as an island and link it to Malta (island).
    • Done.
  • Consider introducing Tyre as "the second-most important port city of the Levant" when it is first mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have labelled Tyre 'port city' on first occurrenc, as the explanation IMO works best when discussing Barozzi's motives. Have also rephrased the rest slightly.
Hello Borsoka. Thanks for the comments, they have been addressed. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 12:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this nice and exceptionally well written article. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The only thing I can find to ask about is the three old sources: Caro, Manfroni, and Wiel. Can you confirm that these are still regarded as reliable by modern historians? -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Manfroni is very much still the standard work on the topic, and most generalist modern treatments of the period and the conflict provide rehashes of his work (Dotson is an exception in this regard, providing his own conclusions, but only on specific events). Caro is a bit dated, but AFAICT not on the narrative history (I am by no means an expert on Genoese history, but my impression is he was the first modern historian to provide a comprehensive narrative about Genoa's political history in that period). He is also still cited in modern works. Wiel is possibly an outlier: it is the only English-language account of the topic that is accessible, and although written as what we would now term popular history, I think it holds up pretty well. The work relies heavily on Manfroni, sometimes to the point of identical phrasing, so what applies for Manfroni applies here as well in terms of up-to-date scholarship. Constantine ✍ 11:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 10 March 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 March 2023 [48].

1950–51 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. for your perusal. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PCN02WPS

[edit]

Just a note that this is my first FAC review. I will be adding comments soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below - apologies if they are a little wordy. I will do another read-through and take a look at the references soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "at the third tier of the English football league system" → replacing "at" with "in" sounds more natural to me (assuming from the "Background" section that the league is not the only one in the third tier)
  • "which would remain" → "which remained" (an essay, granted, but I like to follow WP:WOULDCHUCK for cases like this as I catch myself doing it quite a bit)

Background and pre-season

  • "other member clubs in the ballot" → "on the ballot"
  • "each of the two Third Divisions" → I suppose there's not anything wrong with this grammatically but "Third Division leagues" reads a bit clearer
  • The full stop at the end of the Cox quote should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ as it both ends a full quoted sentence and the sentence containing it
  • "Priestfield" is mentioned here, since it's the first mention in the body, expand and link here and unlink mention in next section

Third Division South

  • "New signing Jenkins made his debut" → this sounds like it's missing an article ("The new signing Jenkins") or could use rearranging ("Jenkins, [another] new signing", or something similar)
  • "would not play again" → "did not play again"
  • This might just be customary for BrEng or football specifically, but "draw [away/home] to __" and "won [at home/away] to __" sound strange to me - I'd rather opt for "draw with" and "defeated" or "won against"
  • "The correspondent for the Western Daily Press" → "A correspondent"; at present, wording implies that reader should already know who the correspondent is or that they only had one
  • "at least twice the three goals they achieved." → this is worded a bit awkwardly; I understand what this means but it took me reading it two or three times to get it
  • "for the first time since the start of the season" → I would reword this since it implies they won 2 straight to start the season
  • "above three teams" → "above the three teams..."
  • "played away to Nottingham Forest" → similarly to "draw"/"won" comment above, this wording sounds strange to me, though it very well could be a product of my disposition toward AmEng
  • "final sixteen days of the year" → specify "calendar year" since "year" could also be interpreted as "season" in this context
  • I don't think the details of the 30/12/1950 Millwall match is necessary since Gillingham's record to end 1950 is given in the sentence prior and discussion related to that resumes with "and ended the year..."
  • "Gillingham scored three times to win the game 3–1" → "Gillingham scored three times" seems redundant since it's given right before the scoreline; perhaps "Gillingham came back" or "Gillingham recovered", or something to that effect?
  • "Gillingham took a 5–2 lead in the first half" → this is presented as the score at half time so saying "took a 5-2 lead into half-time" flows better with the follow-up about their second half goals
  • "and would remain" → "and remained"
  • "The team ended January 22nd in the table" → A reader not paying close enough attention might misconstrue "January 22nd" as a date, so this might have to be reworded slightly
  • "which would keep him out" → "which kept him out"
  • "as of 2009 he remained" → this statement is outdated; either update to "as of 2023" using {{As of}} or update with info about who accomplished the same
    • Nobody has accomplished the same, I know this for a fact, but the only source I have that categorically states "Hales is still the only player to have scored a hat-trick on his debut" is from 2009. Short of adding an individual reference to the playing career of every one of the 100+ players to have debuted for the club since 2009 to prove that nobody else has done it, I can't see a way round this, unfortunately. The only alternative to the current situation would be to remove the claim totally, which would be disappointing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aged nearly 40" → Is there a reason this isn't simply "Aged 39..."?
  • "which would stand" → "which stood"
  • "but been kept out" → reads better as "but had been" even if "had" is given earlier in the sentence

Cup matches

  • "namesake mining facility" → using something like "eponymous" sounds better to me
  • Are the abbreviations for a penalty and an own goal necessary in the FA cup results table where neither happened?

Players

  • "Goalkeeper Day" → this sounds a little odd, I'd either remove "Goalkeeper", add his first name, or both
  • "would prove to be" → proved to be

Aftermath

  • Delink and remove first name for Jackie Carr since he's mentioned and linked in the FA Cup section
  • "but never played a game at the higher level before moving on" → does this mean he didn't play for Brentford or that he had never played a Second Division game before going to Brentford?

@PCN02WPS: - many thanks for your review. All addressed other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck all but one that you didn't change - only I've left is the "as of" which is a relatively easy fix from here. The referencing and citation format look great - nothing that I can find an issue with there. My only other question is whether Thomas needs two links in the infobox since he's the top scorer in the league and in all comps, or if the link can be taken off of the second mention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: - done! :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
All book sources are AGF so I can't spotcheck those but I will spotcheck some of the online references:
  • Ref 4: "The club's fifth application was unsuccessful; Ipswich Town of the regional Southern League received more votes than Gillingham from the Football League's other member clubs in the ballot following the 1937–38 season and thus secured election to the Third Division South." looks good except for "The club's fifth application", which is not mentioned in the newspaper clipping, but may well be mentioned in Refs 2 or 3, which are both offline.
  • Ref 20: "Ahead of the new season additional terracing was erected at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, to increase the stadium's capacity to 30,000." Verified.
  • Ref 23: "Colchester's Harry Bearryman twice cleared shots by Gillingham players off the goal-line after they had eluded his goalkeeper and another shot from the home team hit the cross-bar of the goal; the final score was 0–0." Verified.
  • Ref 32: "A week later, Dave Thomas, a centre-forward newly signed from Watford" Verified.
  • Ref 42: "Gillingham took a 5–2 lead in the first half and added four more goals in the second half as the game finished 9–4. A report in the Birmingham Gazette noted that both teams' defences had been "over-run by fast-moving forwards"." Direct quote and final scoreline verified but clipping does not give exact halftime score, only that seven goals were scored in the first half.
  • Ref 45: "The team were 22nd in the table at the end of the month." The reference shows them 23rd, behind 22nd place Watford by a single point, after close of play on 31 Jan
  • Ref 64: "In the second round, Gillingham played away to fellow Third Division South club Bristol Rovers. Thomas gave Gillingham the lead before Rovers scored twice; a late goal from Jackie Carr meant that the game ended in a draw and a replay was required." Verified opponent and game happenings but replay isn't mentioned in the clipping - if you consider this to be common knowledge not needing a source, I can strike this
  • I would say the fact that the article immediately goes on to describe the replay (and ref 65 explicitly includes the word replay) can be taken to cover the fact that a replay was required -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting looks good to me. Are OCLCs required or recommended for books or just for other works? Other than that no sourcing issues. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "prior to the season the club was elected". Perhaps 'prior to this season the club was elected'?
  • "Gillingham climbed to 19th". Which doesn't mean much if one is not told how many teams were in the division. Perhaps this could be moved up from the end of the paragraph? Or 'fifth from bottom'?
  • "So as to be able to attract new players for a higher level of football". Maybe "a" → 'the'?
  • "performed well for the reserve team of a ..." Should that be 'teams'?
    • I don't think so, as each had (as far as I can see) only performed well for the reserve team of one club. To say "each had performed well for the reserve teams of a League club" or "each had performed well for the reserve teams of League clubs" would be inaccurate IMO (the second one possibly slightly less inaccurate but still inaccurate IMO....)
  • "to increase the stadium's capacity." Is it known what to or from?
  • Is it known why Gage was replace towards the end of the season?
    • I'm afraid I couldn't find a source that gave any specific reason. Presumably because he had not been playing well in the run-up to being dropped, but that would be an assumption. The only newspaper source I found that addressed the fact simply says "that excellent veteran Johnny Burke has been recalled to the last line of defence", which doesn't tell us much......
  • "but never played a game for them". Suggest 'but did not played a game for them'.
  • References: why are some article titles in title case and some in sentence case?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - many thanks for taking time to review the article. All points addressed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Just to let you know, I had one more sweep and managed to find a figure for the new capacity buried at the bottom of an article I had previously looked at but somehow missed that nugget...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]
  • You have two sections named Match details: per MOS:HEADINGS this shouldn't be the case. maybe "League match details" and "Cup match details"?
Background and pre-season
  • "2021),[11][12] Half-": is that supposed to be a full stop, or is it a rogue capital H?
August–December
  • "the three which they achieved": just "the three they did" is better
  • "with a penalty kick and gave": "which gave"?
January–May
  • "Following this run, however, Gillingham achieved": "they achieved" is OK here
  • "a week later Gillingham drew": they is OK here too (it's clear who the subject is in this list)
  • "24 March, Gillingham beat": they
  • "as of 2009": was this record broken in 2009, or is that the most recent source you can find?

That's my lot - nicely done, with just a few queries from me. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - many thanks for your review. On the last point, see my response to PCN02WPS above. All other points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are properly licensed and appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Some of the tables are missing incorporated captions. You can hide them with Template:Sronly if they are duplicative of above text/heading. Heartfox (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 March 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) 8 March 2023 [49].

Boulton and Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boulton and Park were two Victorian cross-dressers who went under the names Fanny and Stella. They appeared on stage in drag and—to the shock of Victorian society—did so in public and in their private lives. They were arrested in 1870 and appeared in court. The gutter press of the time published sensational details, including details of their private lives and those of their known friends and associates. An interesting case for the time, it has been re-examined through the changing prism of social attitudes, which adds another fascinating aspect to this small sliver of history. – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Stella_Boulton.jpg, File:Ernest_Boulton_with_blonde_hair_(cropped).jpg, File:Fanny_(Frederick_Park).jpg, File:Frederick_"Fanny"_Park_(Cropped).jpg, File:Stella_and_Fanny_in_character_(cropped).jpg, File:The_Illustrated_Police_News_-_Young_Men_Charged_with_Appearing_in_Women's_Clothes.jpg, File:Ernest_Boulton_and_Frederick_Park_leaving_Bow_Street_Magistrate's_Court.jpg, File:Fanny,_Stella_and_Lord_Arthur_Pelham-Clinton_(cropped).jpg, File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG, File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg, File:Fanny_(Frederick_Park).jpg, File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Am I right in thinking these are not PD in the US?
  2. Are these OK uploaded onto en.wp as being PD in the UK?
  3. Once these six are sorted, are the others OK, or are there any problems with them? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the last first: File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg is still missing a US tag; File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg is missing a publication early enough for its current tagging, as are File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg and File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG.
The answer to 2 is no: local uploads are okay for works that are PD in the US but not their home country, not the other way around. On 1, to know the answer to that we need to be able to determine earliest known publication. If the earliest known publication is recent, it's possible these would fall under {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to hear they are all PD in the US after all! As far as I can see, most of the photographs were unpublished until 2013, so that makes it a little clearer. Going through them individually:
  1. File:Fanny, Stella and Lord Arthur Pelham-Clinton (cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  2. File:Stella and Fanny in character (cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  3. File:Fanny (Frederick Park).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  4. File:Frederick "Fanny" Park (Cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  5. File:Ernest Boulton with blonde hair (cropped).jpg: created by O Sarony (d. 1896): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  6. File:Stella Boulton.jpg: created by N Sarony (d. 1879): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  7. File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  8. File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  9. File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg: Removed
  10. File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG: painting by Eddis (d. 1901): no evidence of it being "published" – either in a book or gallery – so {{PD-old-70}} added
Hopefully that should cover them all, but please let me know either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That last one is still an issue - PD-old-70 is redundant to the tag that was already there, but doesn't satisfy the need for a US tag. For the others, as long as you're reasonably certain they weren't published earlier, they're fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's annoying - it's the tag shown to use on the Commons:Hirtle_chart, which is supposed to be for determining in the US! Any suggestions? - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not known to have been published, wouldn't the same unpublished tag apply as with the others? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep (Sorry, brain not working well today) now added - sorry for all the extra work on this one. Are you happy with them all now? - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN's support

[edit]

Usual suggestions, no three-line whip.

  • "after the arrest they were still dressed in the women's dresses": repetition of dress/es? Perhaps "clothed in the dresses" or "dressed in the frocks" etc.
  • "an intrusive physical examination": could link to this.
  • "sodomy in the UK carried a life sentence in prison": plus hard labour, per lead?
  • "Such ignorance... such activity": This ignorance?
  • "such activity...Britain": undertaken reads oddly. Perhaps 'did not exist'? Also testimony rather than expertise?
  • Link Joseph Bristow (for 'tis he), and do we usually mention the title of the source in text?
  • [Passing: "Cross-dressing was not illegal in the 1870s; it was associated with the theatre, particularly pantomime;" good to know that the Victorian mind was nearly as advanced as the medieval one  ;)
  • "they arrested 'for the purpose...'": missing a 'were'?
  • [Lucky landlady. She coulda pulled his rates up, phnarr phnarr]
  • I can never remember what Wiki sez about London boroughs. Would Tottenham have been Middx or London in 1847?
  • Do we know why his father indulged his x-dressing? Seems pretty radical, esp. as he was determined that he'd do a staid job in the city.
  • "While he was growing up...": 'he grew up in'?
  • Indian Mutiny, probably the storming of Jhansi March 1858.
  • "the best profession for his son was within the law...": presumably talking about Park again, but the previous para ends talking about Harry. Clarify who "his son" was?
  • Strictly Davenport-Hines was writing for the Oxford DNB. If any of us could be arsed, that should probably have its own article.)
  • Thompson's activities in Edinburgh; are to infer that his removal of gear was illegal? (Or, without a warrant etc?)
  • Since you later emphasise the degree of importance with which deathbed confessions were treated, perhaps link.
  • "that failure is because the police": was because?
  • "Joyce views...l from the view ..."
  • "Joyce considers that Senelick identifies and studies Boulton and Park in relation to stage drag artistes": there's got to be a better way of putting it than this. Lots of names crushing each other! (Reading on, it's not really clarifed much with the next sentence, "Joyce sees the common theme that Boulton and Park were considered...") Holy Historiography batman!
  • "The historian Harry Cocks": monikered twice, both in Histog./Legacy sections.
  • Check your colons: block quotes "did with each and one another feloniously" and "of two or three months' imprisonment, with the treadmill attached" lack colons in the preceding sentence, whereas the next four blockqts are each led in by colons.
  • "The Labouchere Amendment—formally, section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, named after its sponsor": Perhaps lose the repetition of the title and redux to "This, formally, section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, named after its sponsor..."
Solid work! Cheers, SN54129 16:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. All done as best I can, except where referred to above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convoluted was just the word I couldn't remember at the time! But use, reads much more smoothly if you don't mind my saying. Happy, of course, to support this article for its promotion. It's a really interesting story and one that still, to some degree, resonates with us today... SN54129 12:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami_IV, Just a little nudge... no worries if events have overtaken you though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I wonder if the lead could be condensed into three paragraphs. As is, it strikes me as jumping back and forth in time needlessly; paragraph three restates details from paragraph one (e.g. the fact of Boulton and Park's acquittal, which has its cause and context divorced from the first statement of their acquittal).
  • Just before the case started Clinton may have died, possibly of scarlet fever or suicide; it is also possible his death was faked and he fled abroad. This sentence states twice that Clinton may have died.
  • The events surrounding Boulton and Park make one of the key moments in gay history. I am American, so I don't know if "make one of" rather than "mark(s) one of" is erroneous or not. And I wonder if this should be "gay history in the United Kingdrom" or left as is.
Body prose
  • [...] there was a 28 per cent conversion rate for sodomy [...] Do you mean "conviction rate" here?
  • [...] were associated with homosexuality and male prostitution. Good place to introduce a link to the latter concept.
  • According to the historian Matt Cook, this confirm[ed] the association of homosexual behaviour with fashion, effeminacy and monetary transaction". There's a quotation mark missing from here.
  • [...] according to Joseph Bristow, [...] Should have a descriptor.
  • Cross-dressing was not illegal in the 1870s; it was associated with the theatre, particularly pantomime; there was no association in the minds of the general public between cross dressing and homosexuality. Second instance of "cross-dressing" here lacks the hyphen. Check the article over and make sure this is consistent.
  • During his childhood he also developed a fistula in his rectum which needed surgery.[a] The highlighted footnote confuses me; did Boulton require surgery shortly after being born, or does the prose refer to the footnote? If the latter, remove the footnote's contents to this sentence.
  • He had the surgery when about 22. I'm trying to avoid dodging back and forth in terms of time (ie. mentioning his very young life, then the fistula surgery when he was 22, then back to him being six or so). - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two times that Boulton is referred to by female pronouns. This does not appear to be the case for Park. Did Boulton identify as a woman?
  • There is no record of when Boulton and Park first met, but the two soon became close friends [...] "soon" here is meaningless without a bedrock. If we don't know when they met, then we must surely know by what time(s) they were known to be close friends.
  • Boulton and Paul Paul?
  • To store their dresses, cosmetics and other items, as well as a base from which they went out, the two rented a small flat at 13 Wakefield Street, off Regent Square. Is this the flat mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of #Fanny and Stella?
  • He also noted that both Boulton and Paul had large penises; he said this was a result of their sodomy.[d] (Hilarious.) The attached footnote also mentions enlarged testicles.
  • When examined, Mundell stated that he "believed Boulton to be a woman", and made advances to her accordingly. Advances of what variety? Assume I am naive.
  • He said that [...] Two sentences, one after the other, start with these words in #Trial.
  • [...] what was considered a foreign habit was being practised in England. Huh?
  • After the acquittal, some of the leader writers changed their stances, and The Times said they had "a certain sense of relief that we record this morning the failure of a prosecution"; a guilty verdict, the leader writer continued, "would have been felt at home, and received abroad, as a reflection of our national morals". Huh? The last clause seems to fly in the face of the whole rest of the sentence.
  • It was a head in the sand avoidance of reality. If they had been found guilty then it would have proved cross-dressing and homosexuality existed in England (shock horror!), but as they were acquitted, there was no proof it existed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upchurch and Bartlett, Cocks considers, write of a "wilful ignorance" [...] Huh?
  • The second paragraph of #Portrayals is stylistically incoherent.
All the points of the Body addressed either above or in this series of edits. I'll work on the Lead comments shortly. Many thanks for your comments, which are absolutely spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hi Vami_IV. I've covered all your points in these edits. There are a couple of comments above where I haven't done something - either explaining (and I'd be happy to hear alternative suggestions on the text) or querying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vami_IV - your comments we very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TR

[edit]
  • Lead
  • The alt text for the lead image asserts that Park and Boulton are seen in Edwardian ladies' dresses, which would have been a good trick in 1869.
  • "The events surrounding Boulton and Park make one of the key events…" – too many events.
  • Background
  • "a 60-year-old man and a 35-year-old lawyer were arrested" – I am intrigued by the implication that a lawyer is not a man.
  • Thomas Ernest Boulton
  • "Boulton was often mistaken as a baby girl" – strange preposition; one might expect "for"
  • "on the Haymarket" – this would be the Haymarket, Tallahassee? The preposition you need here is the BrE "in".
  • Frederick William Park
  • "He grew up the family home" – missing a word.
  • "sent to Scotland by his father to avoid further scandal" – not clear how being in Scotland would improve the young man's morals.
  • It's not covered by the source, unfortunately, although as they had a different legal system, the jurisdictional issues would have made it difficult. Removing him from his social circle is likely also a reason, but this is all just OR and guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mrs Mable Foster" – really Mable and not Mabel?
  • Fanny and Stella"
  • "would go out in public dressed in both male and female attire" – must have been hot wearing both. Perhaps "either" here?
  • "simpering and mincing … was popular" – plural verb wanted
  • "part of a theatre troupe that would tour Britain" – not sure why "would tour" rather than a plain "toured"
  • Arrest and investigation
  • "Police also interviewed John Safford Fiske, the American consul in Leith" – do we know why? Seems a bit odd.
  • "three others who were found to have ties to the others" – others ... others.
  • "He has also written letters to Boulton" – "had also written"?
  • "although McKenna considers it likely that he lived abroad" – this reads rather oddly. You have touched on this theory in the lead, but here I think you should consider adding something to the effect of "he did not, in fact, die but lived abroad"
  • "There was no doubt, he said, that some of the accused had appeared in public in drag" – as you are using indirect speech – "he said" – I think perhaps "drag" is not quite right here, though of course fine elsewhere. Possibly "in women's clothing" or some such?
  • Legacy
  • "Do you take me for Boulton and Park?'[150][145]" – refs in wrong order.

That's all from me. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency. The article is in fine fettle, and I look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff - all ad rem comments - thank you very much! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: it's a cracking read, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated, balanced, and the right sort of length for its material. And amazingly for a SchroCat article, death and destruction are kept to a minimum. A pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 12:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Many thanks Nikkimaria: I’ve covered both of these. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 4 March 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) 8 March 2023 [50].

Goodwin Fire

[edit]
Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again. I'm back with another wildfire in the great state of Arizona in 2017. This one's not quite as exciting as the previous fire, though; no holy mountains or pestilence. This article was retooled a bit following my previous FAC based on suggestions there, and I can't wait to see what further lessons I can learn from this FAC. Wildfires are an underdeveloped topic area on the English Wikipedia and it's been exciting to see how I can sharpen this area. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Changed to better describe the image. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]

Hello Vami, I will complete a prose review by the end of this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest linking "season" to Dry season in "The State of Arizona expected a "normal" season". I would say to link Fire season, but it is a disambig.
  • Watch for MOS:PERCENT compliance, as you use both "%" and "percent" in the article; you should only be using one or the other.
  • "$16.6 million, adjusted for inflation" please include the year you are using to calculate inflation.
  • You say in the article "109 houses were damaged, of which 13 were destroyed" but the source says "109 homes were damaged (13 homes sustained major damage or were a total loss)", which is not the same thing. The wording in the article should be adjusted to match the source.
  • "Helicopters began dropping 27,365 lb (12,413 kg) of grass seeds" should this be "grass seed?"
  • "Over 9,000 people were evacuated and the fire destroyed 17 homes and damaged another 19 structures." This sentence is awkward due to the use of "and" twice. Suggest replacing the first "and" with a semicolon.

SC

[edit]
Lead & IB
  • You have U.S. in the lead and US in the IB: either are acceptable, but you should be consistent
  • It may be worth thinking about a smaller scale map to replace File:USA Arizona location map.svg. You rattle through the names of several roads and towns in the description of the fire, all of which have no context without a map or local knowledge. (I don't force this on you, but I'll leave you to think it over – it won't affect my decision in the end)
Background
Fire
  • "Also on June 27": also? You've not mentioned the 27th before. You could go with just "On June 27".
  • I am presuming "preemptive" is correct in AmEng? (In BrEng we have it "pre-emptive", but I seem to remember you don't bother with the hyphens as much as we do – just checking either way)

That's it from me. Short review for a short article, but it's well written and doesn't over dramatise or fill with unnecessary details; leaning heavily to support. – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

I enjoyed your previous fire article and this one looks in good shape. I'm glad you adopted the background section; I think it adds useful context.

  • This might not be relevant here and might not be sourceable at all but at what point do the authorities decide to tackle a fire as opposed to containing it or letting it burn itself out?
  • Can we have an explanatory gloss on chaparral so the reader doesn't have to click? It seems to be a specific thing to that part of the world.
  • 109 houses were damaged and two residents had to be rescued from their homes pedantic, but don't start a sentence with a numeral per MOS:NUMERAL

That's all I've got. Short article, but doesn't seem to lack anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Harry. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • The fire destroyed 17 homes and damaged another 19 structures, but did not injure or kill any firefighters or civilians.
but "it" did not injure
  • Despite firefighting aircraft being twice grounded by civilian drones operating in the burn area, fire crews made rapid progress containing the fire's spread after June 28.
"the" fire crews
  • The fire was fully contained on July 10, but had lasting environmental consequences.
Add "it" between but & had, or drop the comma

Background:

  • The State of Arizona [had] expected a "normal" [fire] season but one with high fire potential in the state's southern grasslands [due to] because of high temperatures, low humidity, and an abundance of fuels.[3]
Suggest the above additions

Fire:

  • The pair reported the fire and began digging a firebreak; firefighting units arrived to begin fire suppression efforts two hours later.
Suggest -> firefighting units arrived "two hours later" to begin fire suppression...
  • Doug Ducey, the Governor of Arizona, declared Yavapai County to be in a state of emergency the next day,[13][14] and [he] secured additional state and federal resources for containing the Goodwin Fire.
Suggest the above change

Aftermath:

  • The fire forced the evacuation of 9,000 people, destroyed 17 homes, and [it] damaged another 19 structures.[5]
Suggest the above addition 
I don't understand this suggestion; adding an "it" there strikes me as unnecessary since the fire is already the active subject of this sentence. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than 650 firefighters were involved in containing the Goodwin Fire at its height.[13]
  • Might be better placed under the Fire section
  • Were the fire crews all from Arizona?
  • A human cause for the Goodwin Fire was suspected by firefighters,[19] but the subsequent investigation did [could] not determine a specific cause.
Suggest the above addition

Environmental consequences:

  • On July 19, rainwater drained from the Goodwin Fire burn scar into Big Bug Creek, near Mayer, and [it] overflowed into a trailer park within Mayer's municipal limits.
Suggest the above addition
I have instead placed a "which" here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 109 houses were damaged and two residents had to be rescued from their homes.[37][38][39] Some evacuations ordered in response to the flooding remained in place until August 19.[40]
Seems more like aftermath?
  • Helicopters began dropping 27,365 lb (12,413 kg) of grass seed and 2,105 short tons (1,910 t) of straw on August 18.[43]
  • Some readers might ask, why the straw?
  • Is it known whether or not the reseeding was sucessful?

Finished Pendright (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Unless otherwise noted, I have adopted these suggested changes. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Parking myself here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "June 24, 2017, by a two-man fire patrol" and "Bradshaw Mountains, near Prescott, Arizona" I think you can lose the commas here
  • Odd question but if the chaparral had been disturbed what would the difference have been?
  • "Yavapai County, Arizona" you can probably just say Yavapai County (applies again later)
  • I'll retain it to firmly root the prose in Arizona, not that there are many other Yavapai Counties out there and in spite of the lead saying the fire was in Arizona, since the lead should be a summary of the body prose. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the prose already is clearly rooted in Arizona. The fire is stated to take place there in both the lead and the body before Yavapai is mentioned. It would only be necessary to clarify the state the county is in if it were somehow not in Arizona.
  • "The Goodwin Fire was one of 2,321 wildfires that burned 429,564 acres (173,838 ha) in Arizona in 2017." I won't die on this hill if no one else here feels this way, but to me this reads like each wildfire burned that many acres. (Compare "Jane Smith was one of 10 basketball players that scored 100 points that year" - see what I mean? It reads like each of the 10 scored 100.)
  • " "normal" fire season but one with high potential" - is it just me, or is this a contradictory forecast? Everything will be normal except the parts that will be bad?

Overall no serious gripes, another well-written article in general. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a few things above but they're not enough to withhold support over even if they're not changed. Everything I didn't comment on looks fine now. Supporting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You include the publisher for all the web citations except FN 35; any reason not to include it there? And FNs 1, 5 & 13 have no website/work parameter. Consistency is all that's required; is there some logic here that I'm not seeing?
  • I don't think I've seen the "series" parameter used for a web citation before (FN 5). Looking at the formatted version of the citation it's hard to tell that it's not intended as a location. I think this is OK, though; I'm just curious as what you intend it to convey.
  • I think you need location= in some of the cite news footnotes. E.g. FN 18 is from The Daily Courier; most readers won't know that's an Arizona paper (and there are a couple of other US papers with the same title). There's no need to add location if it's obvious from the paper title, of course, and I would say it's optional for the TV stations, though personally I'd probably add it.
  • It looks like most or all of the archive links for The Arizona Republic have been excluded from the Wayback Machine, so I would cut them. The direct links appear to be paywalled so you might flag those.

Sources are all reliable for what they are used for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Suggest adding the paywall symbol for The Arizona Republic but that's not a FAC requirement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also done. Thanks a ton for this review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:06, 7 March 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2023 [51].

Thekla (daughter of Theophilos)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC); User:Unlimitedlead; User:Ichthyovenator[reply]

This article is about a Byzantine empress who was one of the only ones to ever hold real power, serving in the regency of her brother, Emperor Michael III alongside her mother. In spite of being one of the very few women to hold imperial power, she seems to have been disinterested in it before being deposed by her brother, later possibly being involved in an elaborate adulterous conspiracy, and later being stripped of her possessions and dying in obscurity. As with nearly all my nominations, she is more a victim of history than an actor in it. First brought to my attention when I reviewed the article for GAN, nominated by my friend User:Ichthyovenator, User:Unlimitedlead and I have worked to bring up to FAC standard in his absence and honor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

[edit]

Reserving space for a review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 11:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some minor edits to save time
  • as Theodora despoina ought to be glossed as 'the Lady Theodora' or similar
    Done.
  • where she is shown as larger. than who? (Done)
    • BTW, I know this counts as OR, but I don't see this as evidence of anything: in the coin shown in the article, Thekla is shown larger because she was older than Michael III. Depending on the date of the coin, Thekla may have been a teenager or even twenty or thirty years old (!), whereas Michael was a child. Given that, I think too much is being read into here. Constantine ✍ 15:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Will address the comments tomorrow; FWIW, I tend to agree with you on this point, I think it's a case of earlier historians agreeing that she was associated with imperial power, and later ones working backward from there to consider the coins as proof. That being said, some European cultures at the time did display people's sized based on rank, rather than age, actual size, or position in the media, so it's not impossible for them to be correct. Either way, I'm not comfortable excluding it; perhaps a HQRS will come along and disagree with them at some point down the line. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, what is ref #17 in aid of? 'Herrin 2013, p. 327' is the book's index... Constantine ✍ 15:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed.
  • Emperors of the Romans link 'Romans' to Byzantine Greeks?
    Done.
  • mask their continued relationship 'their' may be a bit unclear here
    Done.
  • Perhaps...perhaps...perhaps... repetition, and the article effectively speculates in Wikipedia's voice. Better smth like: "The historian William Greenwalt speculates on the reasons that drove Thekla to agree to this relationship: resentment for having been unmarried for so long, Basil's imposing physical stature, or political gain"
    Done.
  • after Basil murdered Michael III and seized power for himself both here and in the lede, add date
    Done.
  • Is it likely that Neatokometes will ever have his own article? The information provided by PmbZ is minimal. At best he would be a footnote in this article.
    Removed.
    Unlink also in the lede. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Is the Monastery of Gastria the same convent where she was confined?
    Done.
    I would then unlink it here, as it suggests it is different to the link provided at Theodora was expelled from the imperial palace and confined to a convent in Gastria, and would move the link for the building to 'convent'.
    Done.
  • Mango 1973 is mis-cited: "ZRVI" is not the title of the article, but the abbreviation of the journal Zbornika Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta.
    Whoops; honestly don't know how I messed that up...

@Iazyges: That's it for a first pass. The article looks quite comprehensive, but I will have another look at my sources to see if anything is missing. Constantine ✍ 13:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Done all. Not expecting there to be much if anything left to add, source-wise, but happy to do whatever it takes to make it fully comprehensive. If passed, this will the be first featured Byzantine empress article, AFAIK, and I don't believe any others have even been nominated before, so I'd like to make this as perfect as possible (as well as to honor Ichthyovenator, we Byzantine editors are such a small bunch, after all). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges Thanks for taking care of these. I only got home this morning and didn't really have a chance to settle down, but when I did, I found that you already took care of Cplakidas' comments. Your swift and concise work is much appreciated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: most of my comments have been taken care of by Iazyges. Apart from a couple outstanding issues, there are a couple more:
  • I didn't find much missing, although the PmbZ has some additional information that should have been included
    • A palace was built for the Augustae at ta Karianou
    • Thekla fell heavily ill in 843.
    • The PmbZ also includes info that according to the 'most common version' of the story, Thekla, Anna and Anastasia were first sent to the ta Karianou palace, and only later, after the confinement of Theodora there, to Gastria. Another version has all the women first sent to Karianou, and then to Gastria.
      Added.
  • In general, given the brevity of the ODB entries, I recommend relying on the PmbZ for detailed accounts, especially when the sources are at variance.
    Yeah; mea culpa I only checked that material here was accurate to source and assumed PmbZ was milked for all it was worth already.
  • 'Augusta' is traditionally capitalized, much like 'Augustus' and 'Caesar'.
    Gog has raised a MOS JOBTITLE objection to that below. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, don't know if it is applicable given it is a Latin term, not English. But it is definitely not a deal breaker.
  • The foundation of the Gastria monastery is relevant and should be mentioned; the monastery was closely tied to the imperial family
    Done.
  • It should also be made clear that during their stay in the monastery, the sources are contradictory whether they became nuns
    Done.
  • The De Cerimoniis should also be described as being a Byzantine book from the 10th century (as otherwise its relevance is not clear).
    Done.
  • For the ODB entries, I would recommend either including in the footnotes which article is cited, or separating the citations into different references (especially as the author may not be Kazhdan).
    Included locs for the articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Constantine ✍ 09:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies and the well-written edits, Iazyges. I am happy to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria I've added PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923; are these the appropriate tags? Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely given what the description says. The tag that was there before argued that the coin itself is in the public domain due to its age, which seems reasonable. What we're looking for now is a tag for the photograph - if as the description suggests it dates to 1970 (or possibly 2000?) the tags you've added cannot cover that). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Interestingly, the source for the image says that this coin was part of an auction from October 2011, so this image may be too new to use? The source also has a banner at the top reading "SINCONA SWISS INTERNATIONAL COIN AUCTION AG", thus opening the possibility of using PD-art-70-2-3d-CH. However, this would again raise the question of which tag to use for the photograph itself, not the coin. What do you recommend we do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak German so can't tell whether there's licensing at the source site. Assuming no, you've got three options: get permission from the source site/photographer; find another photo of the coin that is free; or come up with a fair-use rationale (which will be challenging). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Would a cropped version of File:Byzanz- Michael III., Theodora und Thecla - Münzkabinett, Berlin - 5480493.jpg be acceptable? If so, I would need someone else (hopefully Iazyges) to help me out with uploading a cropped version of the file. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @Iazyges Would you mind assisting me with this task? Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: File has been cropped and introduced in place of non-permissible image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Happy to give this one a look - comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are below. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: I believe all the comments have been addressed or replied to. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "in 856 or some time before" → "by 856" sounds more concise
  • "Thekla fell out of favor, being beaten and having her property confiscated" → switch from past to present tense
Both fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma not needed between "eldest" and "on"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the four sisters..." → I think this would sound better with commas after "sisters", "Maria", and "brothers"
Semi-done. Please see if it is to your liking. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theophilos took great pride in his daughters" → this seems disconnected and out of place
Merged into a previous sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arranged to unite" → I don't think "arranged" is needed
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is not only depicted on the coins at all" → I don't think this first part of the sentence is necessary, you could just say that she is depicted as being larger than Michael, therefore she is associated with imperial power
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philip Grierson comments" → "commented"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the coins minting" → "of the coins' minting"? or "coin's"?
I believe it's coins'. Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ostrogorsky states" → "stated"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed in the same convent at the same time, or had already been there" → does this mean we don't know when they went or that we know that some of them were already there and the others went after/with Theodora?
It means that Thekla and her sisters either 1) were expelled all at once, or 2) they had all been at a convent together for some time.Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some believe Michael did so after impregnating Eudokia" → should be directly attributed instead of saying "Some believe"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know sources are likely on the scarce side about some of this stuff, but the first half of the last paragraph relies pretty heavily on Symeon just a few sentences after disputing his reliability as a source
I do not believe this to be an issue because the paragraph does not present the information as facts, but rather as the events as told by Symeon. Other than his words, we know very little about Thekla, so restating some of his claims, true or not, is something that should be included here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is in the very disparate sourcing that relates to this period, especially in relation to the affair; perhaps additional information should be moved over from Constantine (son of Basil I), but I feared undue weight. The main sources for Basil, and the whole alleged mistress swap business, are (1) the tradition of Symeon Logothete, who hates him, and wrote his works expressly against him, and those who later used his works as a basis, and (2) Basil's own son and grandson, (Leo VI the Wise and Constantine VII), and the ones that follow their tradition. Obviously, very biased and diametrically opposed sources. Moving in some of the explanations may help, I think, but Symeon must stay in my view; is he lying? In my view, yes, he is making the entirety of it up to dunk on Basil. That being said, his allegations have split the Byzantinist field in something like half, with many following his tradition (Cyril Mango most prominently), and others dismissing it out of hand (Nicholas Adontz and George Ostrogorsky), and still others stating that any combination is possible. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aged about 35" → is this stated directly by Symeon? If so we can ignore the possibility that she was born in the early 820s
I believe this is just Treadgold's statement. Historians do love to pick a single year for a person's birth even when it is unknown. Perhaps @Iazyges: can verify this information. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "who Treadgold states is 35", as this is his statement, not Symeons. Even if it was Symeons, there are other sources who give other dates, so it wouldn't be conclusive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometime after 870" → is this when Basil killed Michael or when she took John as a lover?
Michael died in 867, so this is when Thekla took John as a lover. I think this is made clear in the sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comments that Basil" → "commented that Basil"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would already have good reason" → "would already have had good reason"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "early 820/830s". This doesn't make sense. If it means anything, it means the 820s, which I assume is not what you mean. Perhaps go with c. 820/821, or 830, as you do in the article?
See my comment below regarding this. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was proclaimed Augusta". Why the upper-case A?
I have usually seen it capitalized; I'm assuming this is because Augusta is a title. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Augusta is usually capitalized; no idea why in particular. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS overrules the sources. For why it shouldn't be capitalised see MOS:JOBTITLE.
Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her mother becoming regent for Thekla's younger brother Michael III, Thekla was associated with the regime as co-empress." It is unclear who she was co-empress with.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alongside her mother in by 856". :-) Pick one.
Ah, silly me. I have fixed it by cutting "by" and inserting a phrase separated by, you guessed it, commas. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Gastria". Want to check that link? And could we say something a bit broader? I doubt many readers would want, or understand, that level of detail in the lead.
Changed to Cyprus to make it more general. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; the link to the Cyprus location is incorrect.
Thank you. Gog raised a point about being general, so I'm going to edit the text to simply read "Constantinople". Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took power as the sole emperor for himself". "for himself" is unecessary.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neglected as his mistress and she instead took another lover". Delete "instead".
Deleted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or early 830s". The previous sentence gives "830" - the singular year. "830s" contradicts this. Pick one.
The previous sentence stated that the year of the marriage between Theophilos and Theodora is unknown, but is guessed to be either 820, 821, or 830. Thus, Thekla would be born in the early 820s if her parents married in 820 or 821, or she would be born in the early 830s if they married in 830. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies.
No problem, I re-read it about 10 times to make sure when writing it; always fun having about fifty dates floating around, most contingent on the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Bury introduced with initials?
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she is the only of the daughters". Has the word "one" gone missing?
Good catch. Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were all proclaimed Augustae". Could we be told what this strange foreign term means? And why the upper-case A?
Explanation inserted; upper-case A addressed above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try substituting "the threat faced by continued Arab invasions" with 'the threat they faced from continued Arab invasions'.
No. Reread what you wrote carefully. You have the marriage happening because the continuing Arab invasions faced a threat. Obviously not what you mean. Lots of ways you could rewrite. What I suggested. "faced" → 'posed'. Whatever.
  • "empress Theodora". Upper-case E.
    Done.
  • "The depiction of Thekla as larger than Michael indicates her association with imperial power as co-empress." Could there be a better way to communicate that she was raised to co-empress - and who with - than tacking it on the end of a sentence about something else.
    Done.
  • "confined to a convent in Gastria. 1. I assume you mean Sancaktar Hayrettin Mosque and not Cyprus? 2. Could we perhaps add that it was in Constantinople?
    Done.
  • I don't want to appear awkward, but what does "to attempt to make political arrangements" even mean?
    Changed to "Deal" for clarity that the following text explains it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the " De Ceremoniis"?
    Done.
  • Any idea when she died?
    No, she disappears from historical record after. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: All comments should be dealt with or responded to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points above. I need to read through it properly, but looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, dear friends
[edit]
  • "as co-empress alongside Theodora and Michael." Could we have similar information in the main article.
Done. Now reads: "Thekla was associated with imperial power as co-empress alongside Theodora and Michael..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Symeon further writes that after Basil murdered Michael III in 867 and seized power for himself, Thekla then became neglected and took another lover". Perhaps 'After Basil murdered Michael III in 867 and seized power for himself, Symeon further writes that Thekla then became neglected and took another lover'?
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thekla was then also beaten". Suggest deleting "then".
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I believe that should be it? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Thank you kindly. I just noticed that you said "dear friends". Perhaps this is just polite mannerism, but I will take it as a sign of endearment. Cheers Gog, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a (mis-)quote, but yes, selected as a sign of endearment. May each of you generate many, many more FAs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • I appreciate the article is using linked harvard referencing, but even so, if it is using abbreviations for the short citations "PmbZ", "ODB", please provide these as a convenience in the Bibliography, eg. "Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (PmbZ)", "Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB)".
Done for ODB. PmbZ is in a template specifically for that source, so I'm not sure what to do there. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the abbreviation to the template directly. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was not necessary, you can always override the referencing by using |ref={{harvid|name}}. Have fixed it for you. Constantine ✍ 07:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Constantine. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treadgold, Warren (1975) is missing an ISSN (2159-3159).
Assuming that 2159-3159 is the missing ISSN in question, it has been added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, all citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.

Full source review to follow shortly.

  • Searches in all the normal places don't reveal any obvious omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
    • Ref #3, "Codoñer 2016, p. 464." – both uses okay.
    • Ref #4c, "In practical terms, Theodora ruled in her own right and is often recognized as an empress regnant by modern scholars." What the source actually says is "After the death of Theophilos in 842, she served as regent for Michael but the eunuch Theoktistos effectively held power.", which feels slightly different to what the article presents.
      Appears Ichy pulled the text over without some of the backing; I've added another ref which describes Theodora as among those that "rule[d] autonomously or semiautonomously", among other descriptions of her power, and added the qualifier that Theoktistos had a lot of sway. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good, thanks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs #4a,b,d,e, all okay.
    • Ref #15, all okay.
    • Ref #25, all okay, though it did lead me to notice the following:
  • "Thus Thekla, who Treadgold states was 35 at the time, became Basil's mistress in early 866, according to Symeon's narrative." Is it worth including that Symeon lists her as being 43 at the time? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not; Symeon is almost certainly pulling an age out of his hat, to be honest, and it would go against what we've tried to establish that her birthdate is utterly uncertain. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much of concern here; I've raised a couple of points above, but I'm generally happy that this is a well-sourced and accurate article, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:18, 27 February 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) 3 March 2023 [52].

Albert Levitt

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about... A must unusual but undoubtedly talented individual (though, perhaps, a bit unhinged) about whom I started this article 14 years ago as part of my research on Nixon's early elections. One can focus on the religious obsessions of his later years, or his being a perennial fringe candidate in multiple states, but still, he got a trio of degrees from Ivy League universities, married a feminist and then a wealthy widow, and got a significant Supreme Court decision named after him without either going to jail or being involved in a lengthy lawsuit. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll write some out in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as a young man,": you probably want a period instead of a comma.
Done.
  • Seems worthwhile to Wikilink Unitarianism in the lead and first section of the body.
  • "1,600 miles (2,600 km) trip" should be "1,600-mile (2,600 km) trip" or another wording.
  • "Chapel, in Brooklyn": comma doesn't seem necessary.
  • Is AFS Intercultural Programs and appropriate article to Wikilink when referring to Levitt's WWI service?
  • "the war in 1917": what war? I know you mean WWI, but the article doesn't make that clear.
  • "its army": French or US?
I was trying to avoid a repetition of United States or a variant and I think the sentence is clear but I've made it explicit.
  • I recommend Wikilinking Elsie Hill from the photo caption.
  • I recommend Wikilinking ROTC.
  • I recommend Wikilinking LL.B.
  • "women's activist" is a poor phrase, I think. Maybe "women's rights activist" or "women's suffragist" instead?
  • "seeking to draft": change to "drafting" or leave as-is?
  • The sentence that starts "He also consulted with future" is too cumbersome, I think. It would likely work better as two sentences.
  • If you're going to use "NWP", then you should include it in parentheses earlier, like you do for ERA.
  • Same for "PUC" later on.
  • "claimed that they had approved": I stumbled reading this, thinking "they" were the activists, but it seems "they" are Pound and Frankfurter. I recommend rephrasing to make that more clear.
  • "not now" seems awkward. Perhaps "no longer"?
  • "friends of associates": should that be "friends and associates"?
  • Wikilink Juris Doctor for J.D.?
  • ", unconventional": I'm thinking the comma would do better as a colon.
I'm inclined to leave it as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Brussels,": should be a period instead of a comma.
  • "it was suggested": who suggested it? I recommend avoiding passive voice here if you can.
It's just a paraphrase of the source. "in accordance with the suggestion made at that time that a tentative code be prepared by each delegate."
  • "state House": should both or neither words be capitalized? I'm thinking neither.
I fear there would be ambiguity, so I've deleted it. It should be clear he was filing as an independent inn the race he just lost.
  • "state Supreme Court": similar to above, I'm thinking no capitalization needed, unless using the organization's actual name.
Rephrased.
I don't see that the article is terribly applicable or helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts "Governor Cross refused to debate" is another cumbersome one. I recommend breaking it up.
  • "The Courant noted,": Given that the quote that follows is two complete sentences, I believe a colon would be more appropriate than a comma.
  • When referring to congressional districts, sometimes they're capitalized, sometimes not. I think they should not be. Sometimes the numbers are spelled out and sometimes they are not. You should make that consistent in either form.
  • "Federal employees": no need to capitalize. Same with "Federal judges".
Done except for one direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 55's formatting is messed up.
What's wrong with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was fixed with this edit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard "Interior Department" before. I've always seen "Department of the Interior". I recommend switching.
  • The sentence that starts "When Cramer was nominated" is way too much. I recommend splitting it up.
  • "Cummings'" should be "Cummings's" per MOS:'S
  • "Black had been elected for a six-year term beginning in 1933": it took me a while of wondering how he was elected to the supreme court before I realized this refers to his senate seat. I recommend rewording.
  • "as Van Devanter, as a retired justice": seems like too many ases.
  • The sentence that starts "That day, while the court sat" is way too long and has way too many commas. I recommend splitting it up and removing the need for so many commas.
  • Seems appropriate to Wikilink Union Party (United States).
  • I'm confused by the sentence that starts "Although Levitt was defeated". How is the Union Party's choice of a gubernatorial candidate connected to Levitt's loss in the probate judge race? I'm also unclear on the vote count math that in Cross's loss. I recommend rewording.
I've rephrased. Baldwin was on the ballot twice, as a Republican and as a Unionist. The combined total elected him, but he needed the Union Party votes to outpoll Cross. Levitt had successfully sued to get the Union Party on the ballot. I can't say with certainty that Levitt's lawsuit elected Baldwin, because those who voted for him on the Union Party ticket might have voted for him anyway but there was certainly the appearance of being a kingmaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to Great Britain should be changed to the UK. Great Britain is the island and UK is the country.
I've changed to Britain. Will that do?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend adding a word here: "with the others in the Republican primary [being] cross-filing Democrats"
  • "Anti-Communist" is capitalized, but "communist" is not. I think both should not be capitalized.
  • I recommend changing "per cent" to "percent" given the article's use of American English.
  • "Army" is capitalized in the lead, but I think it shouldn't be, unless spelled out as "US Army" or something like that.
  • Infobox: doesn't list French ambulance service. Should it?
While the ambulance service was under the command of the French Army, I don't believe he had formally enlisted in military service. We do not list military service in the infobox for Ernest Hemingway, who served in Italy under similar circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations to primary (albeit WP:INDEPENDENT) source newspaper articles looked alarming to me when I first skimmed the article. Reading through it, I didn't find any use of those primary sources that clearly conflicts with WP:PRIMARY. As far as comprehensiveness is concerned, do you think there is any scholarship you're missing here that could add some analysis to this article? There is plenty of factual detail about the doings of his life, but given the reliance on primary sources, little analysis about the impact he had or his place in history. I'm also tempted to say that there's WP:EXCESSDETAIL in this article, which plays out in a lot of play-by-play of events in Levitt's life. Do you see opportunities for summarizing more? I think the lead is an appropriate summary of the article, but to me is really wanting of some analysis, which the body doesn't have, unfortunately.

Regarding the amount of detail, the article goes into greater detail in a few portions: The description of Levitt's involvement with the ERA, something that is mentioned by multiple secondary sources on the ERA. The Connecticut battles of the early 1930s, which is where he seems to have made his mark during his lifetime as it was mentioned in most versions of his obituaries that were longer than a paragraph. The judgeship: there was more of a battle over his appointment than I spend time. African-Americans wanted one of their own, given the racial makeup of the VIrgin Islands. There's a JSTOR article I have that says John Nance Garner, the VPOTUS, wanted a Texan and thought Levitt was African-American, which he didn't want. I didn't want to spend the time on it, especially as it wasn't clear why the choice fell on Levitt.
The other area where I dwell a bit is the 1950 Senate campaign. In my view, that's worth spending time on, both because the intersection with a future president, Nixon, makes it noteworthy, and because it adds to Wikipedia's existing quality writing on the 1950 Senate election, which is a FA.
The scholarship on Levitt is minimal. As I said, there's some on the ERA. There's some on his Virgin Islands judgeship, both the source I mentioned above and the ones we use in the article. There's law review commentary on Ex parte Levitt, which is a significant case in the law of standing, but it doesn't get into him as a person. It's a fair question. I like to write an assessment section to round off an article. But here, the material to work with just isn't there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice, straightforward article in an appropriately encyclopedic voice that is mostly clear and understandable. And what a figure! Dugan Murphy (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think I've gotten to or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I approve your responses to all the issues I raised, including the items you kept the same. I am inclined to agree with your defense of the article's level of detail. Such is the fate of biographies of really busy people with long lives, especially when they're involved in events that require explanation for the average reader to understand. It's really too bad there isn't more scholarship on this interesting and impactful life, so we'll live with the lack of analysis. FYI: I just noticed inconsistent use of US/U.S., so I changed instances of the former to match the latter. Having done that myself, I am inclined to support this nomination on all the FA criteria but the images and sources, neither of which I looked at, though at a glance, the sources look fine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Miss_Elsie_M._Hill,_152005v.jpg needs a US tag, and what is the author's date of death?
Replaced with another image and the tag does not go to date of death.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that image description. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker... - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of 'never the bridesmaid, never the bride', but this guy takes the prize on it!

Lead
  • A brief aside, but I'm trying out the new Vector skin for a bit – without the TOC between lead and first section, it does push infoboxes quite far down the articles. This one reaches to part way through the Harvard and the ERA section on my screen (although that will vary on a myriad of grounds for others). There's nothing to do about it, but its lucky the photo of Elsie Hill is not pushed out of her section altogether.
  • "minister, attorney, and government official" uses a serial comma, "Connecticut, California and New Hampshire" doesn't. Whichever you choose should be consistent
Harvard and the ERA
  • "Dean Pound was willing": Just "Pound", rather than the title?
Roving professor
  • "receiving his J.D.": I had to use the blue link to find out what a JD was – maybe a couple of words to help?
I've made it clear he was going to law school.
Judge (1935–1936)
  • "President Roosevelt": Just "Roosevelt"?
1950 Senate primary
  • Nixon "had in fact been responsible for aiding the Communist Party": while I presume there was little or no basis for this, I think you may need to give a detail or two on exactly why Levitt thought that?
The source spares us his reasoning. However, it seems consistent with his other bêtes noires, such as his commentary on McCarthy, that in attacking the communists, they were in fact aiding them.
Perennial candidate
  • "Albert Levitt gave an address": just "Levitt"?
Well, now you have two Levitts and Lilla said she was from Frederick, Maryland.
  • You don't link "vice president" (nor "president", above): I presume this is deliberate, but I'll raise the question in case it's an oversight
Yes, seems to me a low probability click, that in looking at what is certainly not a basic-level article on American law and politics, that a link to those offices would be necessary for the reader.
  • "He continued to warn against the "subversive" political activities of the Catholic Church."[125]" There's an extra quote mark here

That's the lot from me; he seems an eccentric sort, forever tilting at windmills! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Levitt is, quite possibly, an epitome of misguided talent. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support All good - either in your edits, or your reasons for not picking up on the suggestions. Nice piece on someone I'd never heard of before. (Caveat: I have no knowledge on the subject, so this is a review only of the prose, and not of the completeness or reliability of the sources used.) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Could Levitt's political party affiliation be inserted in the infobox? Seeming that he ran multiple times for Congress, and that he was both a Democrat and Republican, it seems important enough to be included to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhatamIdoing

[edit]

I think there should be a link to Anti-Catholicism in the United States somewhere in this article. It's a little weird to read about an anti-Catholic US politician without mentioning the broader subject.

I've piped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder whether he really opposed "the Vatican" (the city–state) per se, or if this is a sort of rhetorical metonymy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased that slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll start taking a look at this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Butler, Amy E. (2002)." Per MOS use an endash in the year range in the title.
  • Why is "Lane, Frederick (2008)" using a {{cite news}} template?
  • "Watkins, T.H. (1992)" Our MOS prefers spaced initials: "Watkins, T. H.", also (as above) use an endash in the year span in the title.
  • Note that ref #15 appears to be subscription only.
  • Ref #18 is wrongly listed as "July 27, 1925", it should be 1926.
  • Small typo in ref #25 leaves a square bracket displaying. Same in ref #37 and #53.
  • Ref #44 is missing an "n" from "Governor".
  • Refs #58 and #59 should have "St. Thomas, V.I." in a location parameter, not as part of the newspaper title.
  • Ref #59 also has a typo: "Google NNews".
  • Ref #65 should include Wimer, Arthur C. as author.
  • Add a publication date for ref #69.
  • Ref #74 is missing author details.
  • Why does ref #83 include the location? All previous sources where the location name is in the title of the publication don't. Be consistent. Same with #106
Because some might think "Wilmington" in the name of the paper, which is Wilmington, California, was actually Wilmington, Delaware, which is certainly more famous. Ditto 106, but Selma is more famous as Alabama.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #103, per the source space "S. R."
  • Ref #113, use {{Cite court}} or similar to format this appropriately.
  • Ref #120 is missing author details.
  • All sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Searches in all the usual places did not reveal any glaring omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out on ref #26, ref #57, ref #65, ref #81 and ref #115 reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text.

Nothing much wrong with this, just a few formatting issues to sort out, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've gotten everything. Note the one reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good, source review passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GuardianH

[edit]
Seeing as Levitt was a Unitarian minister, would it be appropriate for him to have the honorific of The Reverend? GuardianH (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean at the top of the infobox? No, I wouldn't bother. He doesn't seem to have used it in his main career. If he were primarily a minister, I'd say yes but being a minister seems to have been only a small part of his career. Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "three Ivy League schools". Would a school be what a non-American would call a university?
I've changed it, but it's common shorthand to say "school" in this context
  • "returning to the U.S. Army after the United States joined the war." That's not what the main article says.
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: why does his military service record exclude his returning ambulance corps work.
  • "He returned to the United States after several months", Assume that the date he finished serving with the French, the circumstances under which he left and the date he returned to the US are all unknown.
It was certainly in 1915, as he taught at Colgate from 1915 to 1916. As for circumstances, I've seen nothing. Ref 8 mentions several other Columbia graduates who had gone over to France and returned so it probably wasn't unusual to do as Levitt did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his Bachelor of Divinity". USvar may be different, but in BritEng that would need something like 'degree' after it.
It's not necessary in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a member of the annually-appointed Assay Commission." A brief in line explanation of what this entailed would be helpful.
  • "working in the War Transactions Section." The War Transactions Section of what?
  • "the two resided together on a permanent basis". "resided" jars. Any reason you can't say 'lived'?
  • "He was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in 1928, then residing in Redding". Unless the bar resided in Redding suggest "then" → 'while'.
  • "over his support for Prohibition". Is "over" a USEng way of saying 'due to'? If not suggest stating what his position was.
Yes, that is what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There had been political conflict involving Wilson in the Virgin Islands, and Cummings (the Virgin Islands judgeship was then appointed by the Attorney General, who also had the power of dismissal) was expected to take care to appoint someone who could resolve the situation." The bit in brackets makes for a convoluted sentence. Suggest either converting it to a footnote or splitting the lot into either two or three sentences.
Rephrased some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it be noted somewhere which party Roosevelt belonged to?
  • "Levitt was defeated for judge." '... in the election for judge'; '... in the race for judge'?
  • "Another case, that of John Fodor for larceny". Is that grammatical?
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to identify Levitt as the person who had been involved in Connecticut politics of the 1930s". Is there a "not" missing? Cus otherwise the sentence doesn't seem to make sense.
No, it's fine as it stands. They were able to identify him as the Albert Levitt of Connecticut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be me, but it's the "as he had not mentioned that" that is the problem. The sentence is saying - or seems to me to be saying: "Nixon, was able to identify Levitt ... as he had not mentioned that involvement in his campaign announcement". I am taking "he" as meaning Levitt and "as" as a synonym for 'because'. In which case I can't make sense of it.
Ah. A light dawns. "As" deleted and the comma changed to a dash. That should do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Albert Levitt gave an address of Ventura, California." Should "of" be 'at' or 'in'?
Clarified. This was in obtaining the marriage license.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I believe I got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, are we good here?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good with one exception, noted above. I am going to be away for a few days. So if the closing coordinator is happy with however you amend that or agree with you that the sense is clear as is, they should take this as a support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with that issue now. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. A few minor points you may like to consider:

  • Lead
  • "He then went to seminary" – at my most recent venture to FAC a reviewer asked me to bluelink seminary, which I did. Borderline, but harmless, I think.
  • "Attorney General Homer Cummings appointed him to his judgeship" – the slight ambiguity here could be removed by turning "his" into "a".
  • "the appointment of Hugo Black to the Supreme Court" – is this the national supreme court or a state one?
  • Law student and professor
  • "his romantic relationship to … Elsie Hill" – unusual preposition; one might expect "with" rather than "to"
  • Roving professor
  • "While there, in 1921, President Woodrow Wilson appointed him" – this seems to say that President Wilson was there, but I imagine it means while Levitt was there.
  • 1950 Senate primary
  • "helping America's enemies scuttle reconciliation" – unless "scuttle" is a quotation it seems a little slangy for an encyclopaedia article
  • Perennial candidate and death
  • "he the same year married Lilla Cabot Grew Moffat" – strange word order: it might flow better if you moved "he" to between "year" and "married"
  • "Levitt spent time devising a peace plan for Rhodesia" – I think this needs a little elaboration. As it stands, it doesn't tell readers much; they may wonder why Rhodesia needed a peace plan. I assume Levitt made proposals aimed at ending the rebellion of the Smith regime and reconciling the factions in Rhodesia, but a few words of explanation would be good.
  • I see from a quick dip into Newspapers.com that in 1967 Levitt is reported as "telling the senate foreign affairs committee that President Johnson's actions in Vietnam were unconstitutional, illegal and all sorts of other things" (Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 1, 1967, p. 25a). If this is correct, it might perhaps be worth a mention? Tim riley talk 09:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that, using an article which isn't quite as colorful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the promotion of this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: well and widely sourced, good illustrations, balanced coverage, a clear and consistently readable narrative and the right sort of length for its material. Impeccably neutral, too: we get no hint of Wehwalt's opinion of Levitt. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 13:48, 21 February 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.
  1. ^ a b Treadgold 1975, p. 334.