Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2021

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 May 2021 [1].

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by AviationFreak

[edit]

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

  • The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.
  • I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?
  • Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.
  • remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?
  • While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".
  • I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements
  • enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.
  • What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.
  • I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?
  • Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.
  • ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.
  • The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?
  • Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.
  • I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.
  • new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.
  • "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.
  • Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.
  • Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?
  • There should be something like "in another" after ...in a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.
  • Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.
  • Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.
  • "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.
  • Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
  • Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
  • Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...
  • Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.
  • I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?
  • It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?
  • Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.
  • the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".
  • In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.
  • Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.
  • I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
  • Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.
  • CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".
  • I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.
  • The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.
  • Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
  • more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.
  • Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."
  • The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.
  • See below comment re. Pellas.
  • My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous comma after "On Steam".
  • It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.
  • Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
  • In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.
  • ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.
  • Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.
  • I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
  • I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
  • Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

Miscellaneous
  • Noticed this right off the bat, so looking at miscellaneous first. The article switches between abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to Modern Warfare Remastered and Remastered. I believe sticking with one or the other would be a benefit. It appears most sources abbreviate to Modern Warfare Remastered, so I'd stick with that in my opinion.
  • "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Gameplay" and "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Plot"; I normally see this formatted as "X of Y", so this could look like "Gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and "Plot of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" if you prefer.
  • A glance at Plot, it might be confusing to some readers. You could cite the game for clarification if you believe some parts are confusing to explain in simplicity (you can check out Paper Mario: The Origami King#Plot for an example of this)
  • These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Good Job! I really like this lead.
  • However, I strongly dislike parenthesis, as to me they simply look unprofessional. They could be changed to hyphens, I guess.
Gameplay
  • "In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example." While this is not really important to understanding gameplay, it doesn't hurt to have anyways considering the length of this section. Your choice.
  • "... and cheats while adding several new cheats." "Cheats" is repeated twice here.
  • Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."
  • "The multiplayer mode offers a greater ..." -> "The multiplayer mode offers a larger ..." because "greater" sounds more ad-like.
  • "A number of weapons not featured in Modern Warfare were added." This sounds rather clunky to me. They simply added more guns, correct? Maybe something along the lines of "Modern Warfare Remastered also added additional weapons" or something like that.
Reception
  • I have nothing specific to point my finger at. I'm angry about that. I promise I'm nitpicky! I'm a Wikipedian!

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini!🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and Comicbook.com, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini!🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back; although I've supported I've got an answer to your first question that I missed. In theory, there are no issues with images, and the one there is within WP:NFCC. However, you could use a second image for gameplay reasons. Panini!🥪 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini! I've been seriously contemplating putting in an additional image after AviationFreak also suggested it last month, and I've compiled examples for use in either one of two sections. One would be a screenshot I've found of the new Prop Hunt mode for the Gameplay section; the alternative is a marketing image for Infinite Warfare's special edition with Modern Warfare Remastered, which would go in the criticism section on the product bundle. However, in the peer review, ImaginesTigers said I would likely have to settle for one gameplay screenshot, and we already have two in Development for the purpose of highlighting and comparing the games' visuals. On the other hand, I notice the Paper Mario article, which is now an FAC (well done!), does have two gameplay screenshots, so I'm sure it's not impossible, provided the rationale is very good. What would you suggest?
The other issue for me personally is that I'm still really not very knowledgeable on the process of uploading and formatting images, in addition to how the process changes depending on whether they're uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I notice those I've seen from WC, among a whole host of other changes to file information, don't include a rationale; am I right in thinking they don't need these because they're free-use? And would a marketing image fall under free-use? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I've uploaded dozens of fair use images, so I can take care of that part for you. One of the rules of non-free images WP:NFCC is that the article must have significant commentary to warrant its importance; in the case you mentioned, Prop Hunt has a small sentence and doesn't fit this criterion well. You'd be better off with a simple gameplay image in my opinion, similar to that of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Boring, but more necessary and efficient to the reader. The marketing image should be fine, in theory. Is it a real-life image taken by another person? If so, it should be freely licensable and wouldn't have to adhere to NFCC if uploaded, due to it being in the commons. However, if it is not your own work, you would need to get permission from the person that took the picture. If and once you do that, I can hunt someone down to put the rest together for you. For an example of free liscencing, view [[File:Nintendo 64 with Paper Mario.jpg]]. Panini!🥪 10:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Panini! As the Gameplay section links to the Modern Warfare article for further information anyway, I don't know if having an image in both sections would be necessary (although I do think the image in Modern Warfare doesn't show a whole lot and it only concerns the multiplayer). The advertising image isn't a photo or a screenshot, it's just a graphic (see examples here and here). Also, does it matter if the source it came from isn't considered reliable? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct the source review and first-timer's spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 10 (Call of Duty's Prop Hunt) is missing the author
  • Done.
  • What makes New Gamer Network high-quality RS? Not listed at WP:VGRS, and the credentials listed in their About section are all about playing video games, and not about writing for significant RS
  • Removed all mention of NGN and cited with other sources; changed or removed prose as necessary.
  • Destructoid is listed as situational at VGRS. I believe I've been informed at a FAC/FAR somewhere that Chris Carter is a useable author, but I'm not familiar with Peter Glagowski. Does Glagowski have credentials? Ditto with Jordan Devore.
  • Glagowski appears to be a former Destructoid writer, and has also written for Flixist, PC Invasion (these two are owned by Destructoid per Enthusiast Gaming), TheGamer, TechRaptor, and New Game Network, sources of which are either classified as situational or don't appear at all on WP:VG/S. I can't seem to find anything on Devore, other than that he was a founding member of Destructoid (per the footer tagline in his written articles).
  • Hog Farm. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Beyond that, I think everything's reliable for what it's cited for, and nothing really stuck out as formatting issues. Spot checks will be done at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing came up with spot checks; may have been me missing something. Looks to be in pretty good shape here. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing now look good, passing the sr. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
Apologies. Ignore that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Is it worth me improving it anyway as it doesn't explicitly describe what's in the images? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did it anyway. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • "offering a number of small improvements" this feels like an opinion, not an encyclopedic assessment. Maybe "modifications" or similar.
  • I've changed most of the uses of "improvements" to "modifications" and "adjustments".
  • The lead doesn't really offer any insight at all as to the plot of the game. If you don't know about CoD: Modern Warfare, you really aren't left with any clue as to what this game is about from the lead.
  • In the lead of Call of Duty 4's article, the plot summary is included in a paragraph on the story and multiplayer. Obviously I will re-phrase the wording, but would you suggest doing the same for Remastered and making the plot its own paragraph, or trimming it and putting it on the end of (which I believe is most suitable) the first paragraph?
  • I've used near-identical wording to the plot summary that used to be in the Plot section and included in the first paragraph. Both the lead and Plot use the full titles of the SAS and USMC and their abbreviations in brackets. Do both sections need the abbreviations? Should the Plot just use the abbreviations (and have their first instance wikilinked)? Etc.
  • " IW Engine " why capital E? The target article doesn't use E.
  • Uncapitalized.
  • Notes [a] and [b] appear to be unreferenced.
  • I've sourced [a] but I'm having a bit of trouble with [b] and [c]. The thing is, I want to cite the same source for both, and for [c] I've included a quote from the article for further clarification on the subject. I only want the quote shown in the one for [c], not for [b], however if I put both sources under the same ref name the quote is then used in both notes and I don't want that. I also don't really want the source to appear twice in the references list if one doesn't have the quote. Are you able to assist? If not I can just use another source for [b].
  • "players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example" I'm not sure I follow how this taunts someone?
  • I'd wikilinked to the video games section on taunting for this reason, but I can put the word in quotation marks or otherwise clarify further by giving more detail; whatever you see fit.
  • I've given a bit of explanation based on what the source indicates.
  • " full PlayStation Network trophy " two links here, the second linking to a section of the first, just link the whole thing once.
  • Same for " Xbox Live achievement"
  • Done for both.
  • "game released" game was released.
  • Done.
  • What's a killstreak?
  • Explained with sources (as I've used an em dash, should the comma I removed have remained somewhere?). The problem I've got though is that one refers to them as "killstreaks", the other as "scorestreaks" (scorestreaks are the revised version of killstreaks in the series; Remastered uses Modern Warfare's killstreaks). I scoured for sources that explained what killstreaks are and these were the only reliable ones I could find, and I can't really go without one or the other either.
  • ""such as "Gun Game" and "Hardpoint"" what do these modes mean?
  • Explained the modes with additional source.
  • Can I ask for your thoughts on Gameplay having a "See also" section to the Call of Duty 4 article? During the peer review here it was suggested that I try and expand signifcantly on Gameplay so it can stand on its own rather than rely on the other article, and mirror the gameplay information by possibly using the same sources Call of Duty 4 used due to it being essentially the same game. I also brought this up at FAC here but the few I spoke to were generally against the idea if we were explaining gameplay that was near-identical in both versions.
  • I don't think you need a single subheading for Characters. you have a section 2 and a 2.1 but no 2.2 so I don't really see the point.
  • I've removed the subheading, merged with the Plot section, and made some improvements to the wording. However, because the introductory paragraph is as large as the first two describing the plot, do you think it would be best to include a "Plot" subheading, or even restore the "Characters" subheading for the first paragraph as well?
  • " detonated" and "effects" are different subjects.
  • Linked to Nuclear explosion page.
  • "rebuilt [...] from" do you need the square brackets?
  • The quote reads "rebuilt a ton from" so I believed brackets were needed.
  • ""iteration of the series' game engine" you name (and link) it in the infobox, could do so here.
  • This was discussed previously in the review, but in the end I decided against doing it.
  • Changed.
  • Spell out HUD.
  • Done.
  • What's an NPC?
  • It's short for non-player character. Used the full term.
  • "at Call of Duty: XP 2016, the " worth some context, like "at the gaming convention ..."
  • Done.
  • "a reservation card for Target with " this is a bit of a mystery for people who don't have Target to shop at.
  • I wikilinked it to the page on pre-orders, but if you think this needs further clarity would you suggest I just use the term "pre-order"? Do you also think just having "Target" on its own is fine? This was also brought up earlier in the review.
  • Wikilinked. As it is, "2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo" redirects to the E3 2016 article, but do you think I should bother pipe-linking it as "E3 2016|2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo"?
  • "and 10 rare supply drops" what are those?
  • These are explained in Development.
  • "use of microtransactions into " overlinked.
  • Removed link.
  • "incorporated a grind for those not " not clear at all what that means unless you click away from the article.
  • Paraphrased.
  • "Pricing of DLC and..." haven't yet explained what DLC means so expand that in the heading.
  • I think "downloadable content (DLC)" should be used in the article, but I'm undecided whether to put it in the lead or in said subsection where the abbreviated "DLC" is used several times. If it was in the lead, would this justify DLC remaining in the table of contents?
  • Ref 21 has a couple of spaced hyphens instead of en-dashes.
  • I think it's because this is how they were in the game's subtitles, but changed.
  • Publishers/websites etc, what's the approach to linking in the refs? Is it every time, first time only? E.g. Destructoid is linked a couple of times out of half a dozen or so uses.
  • This was an oversight. Linked for all relevant examples.
  • "" to Call of Duty 4 at Wikiquote" game title should be in italics.
  • I'm not sure why as I'm not familiar with using Wikiquote, but while the current non-italicized title links to Call of Duty (series), putting it in italics however redirects to a page on Call of Duty 4 that does not exist.
  • Upon further investigation, it seems subject titles at Wikiquote which are in-lined are formatted automatically without italics (but can be italicized through pipe-linking), per several examples I've just come across (League of Legends for one, which recently became a FA). If the link isn't in-lined, however, it's automatically italicized.

That's a very quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Responded to your comments. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, I'm satisfied that my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Thanks, but I still have several remaining queries with regards to the notes and killstreaks sourcing, Target prose, E3 linking, DLC abbreviation, and wikiquote formatting. Are you able to assist further? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have consensus to promote, and the age of the nom, I think we can leave any such adjustments till post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose The Rambling Man sorted this shortly after I replied. Thank you very much for promoting the article! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2021 (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 May 2021 [2].

Shoom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shoot for the Stars

[edit]

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ultimate Boss has said on my talk that unfortunately they will be taking an extended break from wiki matters (never a bad idea, esp with exams and that), so in other words, not at this time. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This is TUB. I changed my name to something for meaningful.) The article looks amazing so I support! Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
  • Three weeks in and only one general support. Just a heads up that if there is not a fair bit of further activity over the next three or four days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gog the Mild, as an update, Sandy has expressed further concerns re grammar and prose, but before issues below by TRM were addressed, while another top to bottom rewrite is underway. Apologies that this is happening so late, but a much better article is developing. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil. I confess that some of this has me wondering if the article was actually ready for FAC when it was nominated, but as you seem to have addressed TRM's concerns - although we have yet to see how they view your changes and responses - it seems that this may be getting close to consensus to promote. Can I enquire as to what progress has been made to date in addressing Sandy's concerns? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, in the cold light of day, that it was nominated too early...so my bad and learnings, genuinely. However Sandy has put quite "a lot" of effort into detailing specific and general areas for improvement, which were mostly addressed, and now we are down to tense, capitalisation and things like that. TRM has been sterling here, and most of his points were of the clearly actionable (change this to that) type, so I considered them resolved. He reviwed about half the article, but on the back of his points have audited the rest. I realise I'm pushing my luck here, but if its ok, can we let TRM finish up (in a few days), and then I would be happy to ask Sandy to sign off if she sees improvement.. All this brings us to next Thursday, as I have a beast of a week ahead from tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been crazy busy IRL but am now done with project and can revisit whenever Ceoil is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SandyGeorgia, as The Rambling Man has now completed a thorough and detailed review during which no punches were pulled ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Ceoil; I have been extremely busy IRL, but am putting this on my list to complete ASAP; hard to know where to begin catching up, but I will get here soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no rush here. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Commenting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, will be giving you the go ahead to revisit probably early next week. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I will revisit today or tomorrow ...have been busy in the garden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#Revisit SG, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As relatively little was commonly known about ecstasy, a common misconception was that it was legal, when it was legally classified as Class A under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

  • This is the first sentence I happened upon on my revisit. There are three instances of a need to vary wording in one sentence (common common, legal legally, classified class). Then the year 1987 is referenced twice in that same para. I am not sure what the first "commonly" refers to (as opposed to medically maybe?), I am not sure why the second legally is needed, and it seems that the class classified issue could be resolved better. Could the whole sentence be fixed with something like ...
    • Although it was listed as Class A (deemed the most dangerous) under the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, a common misconception about little-known ecstacy at the time was that it was legal.

... the music worked so well with the drug because the warm and empathetic high from E's aligned with the both small, intimate size of the early London clubs, and the shared excitement of discovering a new and revolutionary form of electronic music.

  • I don't know what the "both" refers to, and don't know if the baker's apostrophe on the E's ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, should I expect any further comments or changes before I talk a walk through the article myself with a view to closing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I’ll be looking again in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have done some further editing, and trimmed out repetitive things. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, any update? Or should we go ahead and review with an eye to closing? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to put this one to bed, any further tweaks can take place post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas

[edit]

Support. Everything seems to be in order. I have no problem supporting this for a FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate this considering all you have done here on electronic music...the article was started after admiring your work on "Acid Trax" last year. Ceoil (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

Lead

  • "sucessive nightclubs" first it's a typo but secondly I don't get it, do you just mean different?
  • Was it a one night per week kind of event?
  • "between September 1987 and 1990" this is an odd span, is it September 1990 too?
  • One ref in the lead always seems very odd to me. That material should be in the main part of the article and indeed expanded upon and referenced there.
  • Surprised that Raw isn't notable enough for an article.
  • What is "door policy"?
  • "media "black-out" approach - isn't blackout just a standard English word?
  • "also taking" personally.
  • "viewing the club" as this was held at three clubs, shouldn't this be "event"?
  • Why is "Rave" capitalised?

Formation

  • "The much larger Amnesia nightclub..." largre than what?
  • "DJ's" no need for apostrophe, consistency within the article seems to favour "DJs".
  • "at Alfredo Fiorito's open-air" open-air what?
  • "on return" their return.
  • I'm always amazed by the number of times I see a single subsection used, e.g. we have 1 Formation and 1.1 Early nights but no 1.2.... Would early nights not just stand in its own level 2 heading?
  • "The club opened..." Reinforce "Shoom" here as it's been a while since we mentioned it.
  • "5 am" should use a non-breaking space per MOS.
  • "he did not view it as successful" which he? Several individuals have been mentioned preceding this.
  • "played. [1][15][16] By" no space before refs.
  • "and House music" why suddenly capitalise house?
  • "where is was cool to be seen" it was and this isn't encyclopedic in tone, is it a quote? Wikipedia doesn't tell people where it was cool to be seen.
  • "UK acid House" that capital H again. I don't really favour one way or the other but you need to be consistent.
  • "the queue grew" the queue to enter the club.
  • "to Thursday nights " you said the previous location opening night was Saturday, were subsequent nights Saturdays?
  • I think "scenesters" is (a) not a real word and (b) if it is, it's informal and not encyclopedic in tone.
  • "so tried to minimise attention from the music and general press. So as to avoid mainstream notice" these are kind of saying the same thing...
  • (There's a "Jenny" later on which I guess should be Jenni?)
  • "showed up" a shade informal.

That's a start, more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sound. No rush - I'll go over again based to the type of thing raised above, so hopefully your list for the 2nd half wont be so long. Prob wont edit between Sunday and Thursday pm, so no pressure. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Club

  • "a imported" an
  • "mostly black" isn't it "Black"?
  • "Jungle nights, where house was played" was that also jungle music?
  • "compare it to the Muzic Box club made famous by Ron Hardy" with a red linked club and an unlinked "Ron Hardy", this comparison falls somewhat flat for our readers.
  • "Californian Summer of Love" vs "the summer of Love" capitalisation inconsistency.
  • "1988 was based on" this is a weird way of putting it. Don't repeat "scene" but something like "the 1988 scene" would be preferable.
  • "a handful published" of
  • "contemporarily" do you mean contemporaneous?
  • "acid-house music" why hyphenate here?
  • "popularise Humanoid 1998 crossover" either "the Humanoid" or "Humanoid's".
  • "The Rampling's early" shouldn't that be "The Ramplings's early"?
  • "early adaption" I guess you mean adoption?
  • "than a few feet" these could easily mean feet rather than feet....
  • "unable to see" then "unable to see" in the following sentence is repetitive.
  • Could link dungaree?
  • "well established figures" hyphenate well-established
  • "towards scasual, functional" is that odd word and piping deliberate?
  • "Until the summer of 1987, ecstasy..." giant sentence with one or two too many run-ons.
  • "ecstasy was a legal but obscure" vs "a common misconception was that it was legal" seem to contradict one another.
  • "Until the summer of 1987..." while this para is useful, it doesn't bring in any mention at all of Shoom.
  • "and the energy soda" I think if we're sticking with BritEng we should call this an energy drink, not a soda.
  • "also reduced drug's impact, so" the drug's?
  • "asking for life advice to people" "asking to give" or "advice from"...
  • "newsletters.[67][2] " order.
  • "The early Shoom clubber..." starts two consecutive sentences, mix it up a bit.
  • "This similarity lead many" led
  • "no nonsense personality" hyphenate no-nonsense in this adjectival usage.
  • "off ...I admire her...its" needs MOS:ELLIPSIS attention.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All done except that have retained the "Until the summer of 1987" para...shows the roots of the sub-culture that Shoom popularised in the UK, and also how the early adoptees later became Shoom patrons...are each mentioned later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest

  • "dungaree" is linked to a dab page.
  • "become embroiled in criminal charges" does one become embroiled in or subject to criminal charges?
  • "and undertook a successful career as a" -> "and became a successful"?
  • "He said that by 1990 dance " -> "He said that, by 1990, dance "
  • "1990s rave scene" you linked rave in the previous section to something different.
  • "the Balearic sound" you say this like it's a "thing", is there a link?
  • "before the larger-scale, often illegal..." no need for "the".
  • "the Balearic had" should "sound" be in there?
  • "members Bernard Sumner and" you didn't repeat Faver's first name but you do Sumner... Be consistent.
  • "Weatherall produced" hyphenate.
  • "and to me it wa s... the ... dream"" typo and MOS:ELLIPSIS here (non-breaking spaces in all the right places).
  • crossover or cross-over?
  • "by Billboard Magazine in their" magazine isn't part of the title, it's just Billboard so perhaps Billboard magazine.
  • "in the US..[1]" double full stop.
  • "well established" hyphen.
  • "Rampling disputes this and said ..." needs ref.
  • "time E became" ecstasy.
  • "which in section 63(1)(b) outlawed" -> "in which section 63(1)(b) outlawed"
  • Be consistent with linking works/publishers in the refs e.g. why not link The Guardian?

That's probably it for the first reading! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. All done....Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of work has gone into this, and I feel it's been much improved since my first read, so I'm happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really appreciate all the time you put into this. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Link National Institute on Drug Abuse in ref 2
  • Ref 68 seems to be in a different template
  • The Guardian should be italicized in Snaped
  • Are we sure "Positive Energy of Madness" is the publisher for Sedazzari?
  • You have "Shoom.london" here but have it lowercased in Notes; either is fine, of course, just needs to be one or the other
  • Should be The New York Times I believe
  • A minor quibble, a bit confused on your linking of publishers/works. I was guessing you're linking non-book sources in their first mention, but i-D is linked twice, as is mixmag.
Reliability
  • Looks good from what I can see
Verifiability
  • Page number for ref 79 (Hook 2009)?
  • page number for ref 18 (BrewsterBroughton 2014)?
Thanks v much Aza. All sorted, except the NYT is often here minus the "the", and I bought both Hook and Brewster & Broughton as an e-book; hence no page number. Not sure how linking to a kindle "area" works, though the format makes it none the less valid. ps Sedazzar now removed. Anyways, thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil on specifying a section where you have no page number, see dementia with Lewy bodies#References and use of | loc = SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a change in citation style that is not required (and has introduced harv ref errors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, this has been fixed again. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ceoil, we're still missing a page number for Hook 2009 and BrewsterBroughton 2014 (now refs 17 and 78)—a chapter would do too, I would think Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted Aza in case you missed the above. Adding chapter nrs/sections for e-books is a new one for me...thanks for tips; Co-vid and its many weird impacts on ordinary life eh. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops yes I don't know how I missed you comment now—but yeah, tis odd how Covid manages to sneak its way into everything—looks good now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking now...tweaking as I go.....queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the end of the first para you have In the club's first months, Danny and Jenni Rampling would greet each patron as they arrived, and say goodnight to them as they left., which has been mentioned in the preceding section - should be merged and placed in one spot or the other. Actually I'd probably move para 2 of Formation onto para 1 of early nights TBH.
  • Does Rampling or anyone else recall how many turned up on the first night?
  • Within months of opening, the queue grew from a few hundred into over a thousand, leading to a move in March 1988 to Thursday nights at Raw - should this be "attendance"?
  • The club's popularity began when it was praised... - I'd probably say, "The club's popularity grew after it was praised..." (more natural and chronological)
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoom's interior design tended towards minimalism architecture, mirrored walls and smiley face logos - "minimalist"?
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he became a rather boring internationally renowned mainstream DJ, while she went into private industry and became very successful as a formidable character. Hang on; searching through the sources to find about her. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and for the edits Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've found everything that could be found. A nice read :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas for all the direct and suggested improvements. Re queuing not knowing if you would get in...remember it all to well. The trick was to look them in the eye and show no fear, which worked around..."some" of the time :) Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. As a country person who's never ingested anything worse than caffeine and some accidental pesticide exposure a couple years ago, I expect to be completely unfamiliar with a lot of this topic matter. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " But this time, electronic music had crossed into the mainstream as the heavier sounding rave style became popular, leaving Shoom to seem outdated" - It's unclear to me why this sentence starts with "but". It seems to me that "by" would be a better first word.
  • "Chicago DJ Bam Bam played at Shoom in 1988, and was impressed enough to compare it to the Muzic Box club made famous by Hardy" - Who is Hardy?
  • " Pernod water and the energy drink Lucozade" - Is Pernod a brand name or a special variant with some sort of additive? It's unclear, especially since the company described at Pernod Ricard (where Pernod redirects) appears to primarily produce alcohol
  • "Boy George believes that use of ecstasy had a profound effect of many people" - I suspect you want "on", not "of"
  • I have very strong suspicisions that both of the external links to Youtube fail WP:COPYLINK; they should probably be removed and only seem marginally relevant, anyway.
  • Is it really necessary to have in both the categories for Nightclubs in London and Nightclubs in England, since the former is a subcat of the latter?

This should be it for my review; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits and review. Have resolved those now. Ceoil (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2021 [3].

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army do you really need the first "the" here?
    • Not sure, so I've removed it both in the lead and in some similar phrasing in the body
  • In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession, while Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede in November, joining the Confederate States of America and functioning as a government-in-exile. If the anti-secession state legislators voted against rejecting secession, how did the state actually join the Confederate States of America? confusing.
    • Missouri had two competing governments; I've tried to clarify this
  • the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign can you link Atlanta campaign?
    • Linked
  • gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan according to our article on 1864 United States presidential election, Lincoln won by more than an "edge". Therapyisgood (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does "gave Lincoln an advantage in the election over McClellan" work better?

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, @Therapyisgood:? Hog Farm Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Don't think that the Boonville action is worth mentioning in the lede
    • Removed
  • Most of the first para of the Background section needs to be compressed. All the reader really needs to know is that there were two competing gov'ts in the state and that the Union had de facto control.
  • Ten companies of the regiment are known to have existed. One was designated with the letter G, and another with the letter H, while the designations of the other companies are unknown Suggest combining these along the lines of: "Ten companies are known to have existed, but the only confirmed designations are G and H companies" or somesuch
    • Done
  • capture of Jones's Hay Station Proximity alert for the name; suggest changing it to "the station" or similar
    • Done
  • link rear guard
    • Done
  • Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.[18] Nichols's regiment participated in the pursuit, which was unsuccessful. Combine these with along the lines of "Prince ordered Shelby and his brigade to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers" or something similar
    • Done
  • hyphen for 300 men, rear guard action
    • I think I got these in the right place
  • Can you explain a little more how the regiment allowed the Union troops to escape at the 2nd Battle of Lexington?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert review.

  • Since the article is short on information, as stated by the nom above, I searched for additional sources on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, a (Canadian) university library, ProQuest and archive.org. I could not find additional sources so I believe this article represents the available information for this topic.
  • "Jackman was elevated to brigade command, and Nichols took over leadership of the regiment." Remove the comma.
    • Done
  • "with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived." Remove the time
    • Done
  • In the References section, "Official Records 1902" points to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, so the title is used to identify this source, not the editors. In "Kennedy 1998", the editor's name is used to point to The Civil War Battlefield Guide Either the editors should be used to identify the sources with an editor (recommended) or the title should be used. Please standardise (sorry if this is unclear)
    • Done

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What is the difference between "was recruited in early 1864" and "officially formed on June 22"?
    • I've rephrased this. The former date is when recruiting started, and the later was when it joined CSA service
  • "Once under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Nichols". Was this still part of Price's raid?
    • Yes. Rephrased
  • "The men of Nichols's regiment were furloughed on October 30, with orders to return to the army in December; historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army." I am not sure how the second clause of this sentence relates to the first; you seem to be discussing two separate issues.
    • I've removed the second clause. The connection is made clearer in the body, but there's not really room to go into that whole detail in the lead
  • "Jackman traveled to northeastern Arkansas". On his own or with the recruits mentioned in the previous sentence?
    • On his onw. Clarified
  • "Jackman and his men did not join..." Were these "men" all new recruits?
    • Source doesn't say that any weren't, so I've replaced men with recruits
  • "to join in an attack on a station". Delete "in".
    • Done, although the phrasing would be fine with AmEng
  • "Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Do you mean something like 'The regiment consisted of around 300 men during the month of August'?
    • Yes, rephrased
  • "Meanwhile ... from March through May". I think "meanwhile" is not the best word here. And is there a reason why events are not recounted in chronological order?
    • This sentence represented what was probably-undue background detail to Price's Raid, so I've just removed it entirely
  • That's a big paragraph, maybe break at "Despite having limited resources"?
    • Done
  • "Nichols's regiment". Shouldn't that be an upper case R?
    • I think I was told somewhere that with stuff like this or Landis's battery and stuff like this to lowercase the second word, as it's not a proper name. I can change this, though, if desired.
  • "Nichols's regiment, as part of Jackman's brigade", but you then write as if it were part of Shelby's.
    • "Shelby's brigade" was an error for "Shelby's division", corrected
  • "The Confederate attacks suffered". "attacks" → 'attackers'?
    • Done
  • "Price ordered Shelby and his brigade, including Nichols's regiment, to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers". I bet he didn't! 1. "participate" indicates that there were other pursuers; is this so? 2. Is it known why and/or in what way the pursuit was unsuccessful?
    • I've rephrased most of this; does "Price ordered Shelby's division, including Nichols's regiment, to pursue the Union soldiers, who managed to escape" make more sense?
  • "Price's Raid began in October. Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Why use a figure from August to indicate a strength in October? (October 12: "In this action, Nichols's unit, which was reportedly about 300-men strong".)
    • @Gog the Mild: - These are actually from two different sources. The source for the August number specifically ties that number to August, while the source for this October action (Lause) states that there were around 300 men in the unit at the time of the fight. Lause is quoting someone for the 300, but he uses a really obnoxious way of footnoting that makes it unclear who exactly he is quoting.
  • Just checking that Unionist is actually an ACW descriptor.
    • Yeah, it works for ACW. See, for instance, [4] or [5].
  • "failed to get into proper position to block the Union retreat". Optional: 'failed to get into an appropriate position to block the Union retreat'.
    • Done
  • "to successfully attack the Union center." Suggest "Union center" → 'it'.
    • Done
  • "but the third attack". "the" → 'a'.
    • Done
  • "and did not see close combat at Newtonia." Delete "at Newtonia".
    • Done
  • "The furlough terms set a date of mid-December to return to the army." → 'The furlough terms set a date of mid-December for the men to return to the army.' or similar.
    • Done
  • "the unit's return from furlough". The unit didn't return from furlough.
    • Done, which required some minor rephrasing later on
  • "The unit disbanded before the war ended in 1865". Do you mean 'The unit disbanded in 1865, before the war ended'?
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2021 [6].

Battle of Dupplin Moor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful
Done.
They have been removed.
  • File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?
Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicholson 1961
    • "whom Edward I had deposed in 1296" exact words copied from the source. Should be rephrased.
Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.
    • "Almost immediately" This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which appears to say it happened 2 months later
Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."
    • Nicholson 1961, p. 126. — there's no page 126 in the source.
Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.
  • Webster 2004
    • "The Second War of Scottish Independence which had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357" I cannot verify this in the source which never mentions any "war of Scottish independence".
Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. (Can I cite to the title of a book?)

(t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
Done.
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Patterson 1996 seems to be unused
Odd, but fixed.
  • It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation
Oops. Now covered in main text.
  • In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.
Done.
  • Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.
Fixed.
  • Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?
Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • pike equipped, infantry hyphenate pike equipped, delete the last comma
That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".
  • Remove the adjectival command from the template for 600 feet
Done.
  • were more able to use their weapons Suggest "had more room to use/swing..."
What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?
  • Put Ormrod in alphabetical order
Done.
  • Nicely done.
Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I think you need to say in the lead that Balliol was forced to flee Scotland within months of the battle to make clear that it was not decisive in the long run.
Balliol's subsequent periods on the throne added.
  • I think you should use specialist sources for 14C Scottish history, not Alison Weir and Sumption's history of the Hundred Years War.
Why? Both are reliable sources, and Sumption in particular gives a good and detailed account of the political background, as part of his 184 page examination of the background to the Hundred Year's War.
  • "possibly echeloned forward" What does this mean?
Good point. Military jargon. Removed. (And a Sumption cite goes with it.)
  • "at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation" You should give the date of the battle.
Good point. Done.
  • "In his classic study, A History of War in the Middle Ages, Sir Charles Oman says: "The Battle of Dupplin formed a turning point in the history of the Scottish wars. For the future the English always adopted the order of battle which Balliol and Beaumont had discovered.". 1. You cannot cite the book for the statement that it is a classic. 2. The quote is very dated. Is it not possible to find a comment by a modern military historian? 3. You do not mention that the book is volume 2 and the 2nd edition.
Removed.
  • "Balliol's support within Scotland was limited and within six months it had collapsed. He was ambushed by supporters of David II at the Battle of Annan a few months after his coronation. Balliol fled to England half-dressed and riding bareback. He appealed to Edward III for assistance." The sources for this are dated 1907 and 1913, which seems too dated.
Replaced with Nicholson, 1974.
  • I do not have sources on the battle, but it seems to me very dubious to say "Balliol and Beaumont" with Balliol first. The sources I can access say that Beaumont was the driving force behind launching the invasion and a very experienced and competent soldier, while Balliol had no known experience of warfare. Does no source say that Beaumont must have been the architect of the victory? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sources give Balliol as the overall leader. Rogers for example talks of Beaumont's "remarkable military experience" and has him initially organising the disinherited lords. Once Balliol joins them he repeatedly refers to "Balliol's army". Or Nicholson (1974) "Their leaders included Edward Balliol, Henry Beaumont ..." He then lists six others, but note that Balliol comes first of the eight "leaders". Or DeVries discusses Balliol's role and continues "As well as Balliol these men included [names seven] and, perhaps most importantly, the rich and powerful Henry of Beaumont ...". He then describes the army as Balliol's: "Balliol [meaning his army] marched west". Nicholson in the Encyclopædia Britannica article you quote from says "Balliol came from France to head their expedition".
I follow your logic, but the sources take precedence. What are the sources you have accessed which suggest that Beaumont was the expeditionary force's leader?
No sources on Beaumont as leader, only ODNB articles on military experience. As you say, the sources have Balliol as leader. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranald Nicholson's article on the battle in the 1973 Encyclopædia Britannica says "Greatly outnumbered, Balliol's men adopted tactics later copied by Edward III at the battles of Halidon Hill and Crécy; save for about 40 German mercenaries kept in reserve, all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank. When an impetuous charge by the first Scottish division failed to make headway its flanks were riddled by flights of English arrows and converged in disorder upon the centre." This repeats in its details what you have said, but it seems a much clearer explanation of why Dupplin was tactically important than Oman's vague comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard copy of the 1964 edition which has the same statement. I rejected it as not adding anything to the description in the article. It doesn't seem worth quoting in full, so I have replaced Oman with a paraphrased version of this.
Many thanks for looking through this Dudley, I appreciate it. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A first rate article. I would however like to see the Nicholson comment expanded to explain which tactics Edward copied and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley: quote - you are right; I was over focusing on the description of the Scots behaviour and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Tweaked to read "The modern historian Ranald Nicholson states that Edward III copied the tactics used at Dupplin Moor – "all the men-at-arms dismounted, while archers were posted on either flank" – in the English victories at Halidon Hill and Battle of Crécy."
Lead - I am already unhappy at the length of the lead, yet struggle to see how I could slim it to make room for additional points. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [7].

Hurricane Olivia (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Olivia, a long-lasting Category 4 hurricane that affected Hawaii as a tropical storm in September 2018, shortly after Hurricane Lane passed by a few weeks prior. NoahTalk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink
  • You should link landfall in the second sentence
  • "Olivia formed southwest of Mexico on September 1. The depression" - you never said it formed as a depression. I suggest either you avoid mentioning depression here, or find a way of incorporating that
  • Link wind shear
  • You link Category 4 hurricane twice in the lead, but to two different articles. Seems odd
  • "Olivia made brief landfalls in northwest Maui and Lanai on September 12, becoming the first tropical cyclone to impact the islands in recorded history." - you mention in the lead that it was the first recorded landfall, not just "impact". Also, you mention the landfall on those islands three times in the lead.
  • "Torrential rainfall occurred on both Maui and Oahu, peaking at 12.93 in (328 mm) in West Wailuaiki, Maui. On Maui" - any way you can avoid saying "Maui" twice within three words?
  • "caused thousands of power outages, and caused severe flooding." - can you find a way of writing this so you don't say "caused" twice?
  • "most notably Lower Honoapiilani Road where cliffs were eroded along its shoulder; repairs to that road are still ongoing." - still, as of May 2021? The source says January 2021.
  • " United States President Donald Trump" - this makes me vomit a little bit with some mild PTSD, but nothing you can do about that
  • "Later in the day, the amount of banding features – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds – increased significantly while Olivia's inner core strengthened" - can you avoid saying "significantly" twice?
  • Why was Olivia's restrengthening unexpected?
  • You never linked Kalawao County. Conversely, you re-link all of the islands in the last section. Watch for the duplicate links
  • You link the Kamehameha Highway twice. The first time is in Maui, even though the highway is on Oahu.
  • What is a brown water advisory? Also, you say - " Previously, the entire island of Maui had been under a brown water advisory." - when was that "previously"? Was it due to Lane?
  • "An elderly woman was rescued by Malia Wong and the latter's husband during the storm. " - usually we don't mention specific people involved in events unless they are significant.
  • "The Red Cross helped with recovery efforts. " - you link the Red Cross, but it should probably be the American Red Cross
  • "Wong donated pallets of diapers, water, food, and clothing to people who were severely impacted." - this seems like unnecessary detail from some random person. Is this some philanthropic millionaire? Was this person the only person who donated, and that's why Wong is important?

It's a good article overall. Most of my comments are nitpicks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I should have addressed everything. NoahTalk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from LightandDark2000
  • All of my concerns were addressed in either the A-Class Review or Hurricanehink's comments above. I think that Hurricanehink picked out the last of the issues with this article I didn't find any more issues. The sources also look good to me. I believe that this article is ready for a promotion to FA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from codingcyclone

I may make typos as I am on a mobile device. There are just a few minor issues.

  • You need alt text in the collapsible set showing all the season's articles.
  • Navigational templates at the bottom of pages do not need alt text as their sole purpose is to navigate from article to article. The image in the box is purely decorative. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • began a weakening trend could be shortened to began/started to weaken or just simply weakened.
  • Olivia became a Category 1 hurricane around 00:00 UTC on September 4 while located 575 mi (925 km) southwest of Cabo San Lucas. needs a comma between "September 4" and "while", as well as the advisory as a reference.
  • The cyclone continued to intensify, reaching its initial peak intensity as a 125 mph (205 km/h) Category 3 major hurricane at 00:00 UTC on September 5. change to The cyclone continued to intensify, and at 00:00 UTC, it reached its first peak intensity as a Category 3 hurricane, with wind speeds of 125 mph (205 km/h).
  • entrained do you have a simpler alternative?
  • The hurricane began to weaken shortly after as sea surface temperatures decreased, wind shear increased, and dry air entrained into the storm. Olivia's eyewall collapsed in the north and convection eroded in the northwestern quadrant. when?
  • Models had predicted that Olivia would weaken as a result of dry air and lower sea surface temperatures. you have to tie this in. Merge it into another sentence: Despite the predictions of models,[12] Olivia strengthened over the next day, regaining major hurricane status by 12:00 UTC on September 6.
  • I didn't take the suggestion as that would involve removing details about the not-so-great environmental conditions. I split off the part about the unexpected intensification and added it to the end of model prediction sentence. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooler, 77–79 °F (25–26 °C) sea surface temperatures change to Cooler sea surface temperatures of 77–79 °F (25–26 °C)
  • Low wind shear and slightly higher sea surface temperatures allowed Olivia to restrengthen slightly and re-develop an eye feature on satellite imagery later that day. put the "later that day" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • The storm turned westward and transitioned into a post-tropical cyclone by 06:00 UTC on September 14. add "then" between "The storm" and "turned."
  • This system opened up into a trough of low-pressure about 12 hours later. replace "This system" with "It."
  • Hololani Resort Condominiums and Goodfellow Bros, the company performing the work, was fined $75,000 in that month for violating state and county regulations. what regulations did they violate?
  • An elderly woman was rescued by her neighbors during the storm. replace "was" with "had to be".
  • I think "had to be" implies there was no other option (such as waiting for/contacting authorities), which I don't believe the source supports. I consider "was" to be more neutral. NoahTalk 01:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, tourism increased in the month of October, following the two storms replace "following" with "despite".

Great job with this! codingcyclone advisories/damages 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in See also warrant citing
  • Upon looking at the source, it appears to mostly be a briefer regurgitation of the information in the TCR (Only includes the Eastern Pacific portion). I don't really think there is anything worth including here, although it could be a useful source for some general information for the season article. NoahTalk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23 has first and last names reversed. Ditto FN46, check for others
  • FN24 has a date that should be included
  • FN28: authors listed don't match up with what's provided at the source
  • Channels shouldn't be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether databases are treated as work titles
  • FN47: don't see that author credit at source?
  • Fn53: is there no better source available?
@Nikkimaria: I should have addressed everything. Let me know if there are any other problems. NoahTalk 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Never reviewed a hurricane FAC before, so this will be interesting. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The fifteenth named storm, ninth hurricane, and sixth major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season,[1][nb 1] A tropical depression formed southwest of Mexico on September 1." - The back half of the first of these two sentences appears to be missing
  • " most notably Lower Honoapiilani Road where cliffs were eroded along its shoulder; repairs to that road are still ongoing" - needs an as of date here
  • Link Molokai in the lead
  • "The Honolua Ditch was clogged with debris; authorities asked customers to conserve water for the remainder of September while the ditch is cleaned out and repaired." - The "is" towards the end of this sentence should be a "was", as this is referring to things from several years ago
  • " Hololani Resort Condominiums and Goodfellow Bros, the company performing the work, was fined $75,000 in that month for violating state health and county environmental regulations" - not convinced that the fining of a company doing repair work is really relevant to an article about the storm.
  • It is a part of the aftermath of Olivia. We have had cases of company misconduct being included for past storms. It is similar to a country's gov't being criticized for its efforts. NoahTalk 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like 0 fatalities should be directly cited somewhere

This one's in pretty good shape; most of my comments are minor prose concerns. Some of the descriptions of the flooding damage remind me of some disaster relief work I did after the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods along the Missouri River. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c (checked Gscholar and ProQuest to make sure that this hasn't been written about in scholarly journals, which it doesn't seem to have been), 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

[edit]

I looked through the article and did not see any particular problems that would be objectionable. Nice work! 웃OO 03:13, 26 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [13].

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

  • "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?
  • Done
  • Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.
  • Done
  • "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?
  • Done
  • It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.
  • Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.
  • Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.
  • Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.
  • It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.
  • Done
  • You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.
  • Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.
That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't. Done
  • There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.
  • Done
  • Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.
  • Done
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.
  • Done
  • Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?
  • Done
  • Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?
  • Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAntro

[edit]

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • A possible comprehensiveness issue. I see no representation from scholarly and academic literature; this is especially concerning given that this game has been analyzed for its contribution to the tower defense genre, and the fact that, according to the Edge source in Ref 17, "during the making of this game tower defence kind of exploded in popularity" only adds to this problem. The only thing the Legacy section discusses is its DLCs, sequels and cultural references, but nothing about its impact on the design of games in the industry.
  • Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.
  • Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some cites have work names linked in every instance, while others not all the time and at random moments. This is inconsistent and not in line with the manual of style. You either have to link all source names the first time they're cited, or link them in every citation.
  • Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.
  • Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • " tower defense and strategy video game" Redundant. Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy.
  • Done
  • 1b issues. The article does state Weedlings was a working title, but never gives the reason for why its change, which was to differentiate itself in the saturated market of gardening games, which is in the Edge interview. In the same instance where he discusses this, he also gives a reason for why he ultimately went zombies as the antagonist, which I also see nowhere in the the Development section: "In fact, the game was called Weedlings, but many gardening games were coming out at that time and that just didn’t sit well with me. I tend to try to make games that are a little bit original. That’s when I came up with zombies, which are perfect because they move slowly so you have a lot of time to react to them."
  • Done
  • "Showing her how to customize their card decks inspired him to design Plants vs. Zombies with seed packet"
    • (1) I don't see how the experience of teaching her how to play Magic plays into this conception. I think the customability of the Magic is what influence the seed packets, not the girlfriend's learning of Magic. Presenting it like this without specifying Magic is a custom game is both misleading and too vague.
    • (2) Who is "their"? Were there multiple people whose cards were owned by while the couple played Magic?
  • Done
  • "finding common tower defense gameplay elements to be awkward, such as mazing and juggling," I know "mazing and juggling" is linked, but I still think how this sentence interprets the Edge interview is too vague. I find Fan's words in the Edge interview to be far clearer, that the "awkward" thing was that enemies would never go after towers obviously attacking them: "Originally the game was laid out the same way, but I realised there was something unintuitive about it. I always wondered why these guys never think to attack these towers that are shooting at them, so I was looking for a way to have the towers be directly threatened by the antagonist."
  • Done
  • "The Jackson-inspired zombie" Not in citation given. It is only from the subjective viewpoint of the sources currently in the article that it looks like Jackson in Thriller. "Jackson-inspired" implies the creator intentionally was influenced by Thriller to make the dance, which is not covered in the MTV Multiplayer source that cites this phrase. Sure, Jackson's actual estate perceived it as a rip-off, but that's not evidence the game's creator intended it that way.
  • Done
  • I don't see any reason to have the first two sentences of the Legacy section in that section and not in a section about the game's sales. The events discussed in those sentences happened close to the game's release, not a decade later, and the citations used for these sentences were published upon release as well.
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments
  • "The team discovered" Wait, this game was done as a team? I initially thought Fan made the game by himself with his girlfriend. [Looks at infobox] Oh, there definitely was a team to this. Any info on how this team came together? Did PopCap sign the man to make another game with staff? A team is randomly introduced here, and this sudden first mention of it may confuse readers.
  • Done
  • Link "real-time strategy" in "Design" section.
  • Done
  • I would really give Ref 27 another read, because I'm finding major details about the making of this game in it that I don't see in the wikipedia article. For example, Fan designed all of the concepts based on the knowledge of casual players: "Fan knew he wanted to use stationary "towers," and players immediately understand why rooted plants are unable to move. Zombies, on the other hand, are known for moving slowly, making them a perfect fit for the game's single-screen fields." Another example, specifically about how the characters were designed: "In Plants vs. Zombies, Fan made sure that each character visually represented its function. The standard "Peashooter" plant, for instance, has a giant mouth for spitting projectiles, and its name further suggests what it's capable of."
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4/11/21
  • I echo yet again for the nominator to give Ref 27 more reads, because only those two examples have been added. Trust me when I say there is more than 2 cites worth of material in that source. Given missing info I have found in other citations in this article, I'd recommend the nominator read the other references to look for any other missing details himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the lack of comments over ten days. I have been juggling other reviews and articles on Wikipedia and sometimes delays like this happen. My apologies.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4/22/21 Now that this has a re-write and expansion, here's some more comments. I'll have more to make after this.
  • The lead is well-written but feels short a little on summary of development.
  • Done
  • "who want to eat the player's brains" (1) This might get nitpicky, but the cited source only describes the game as the player defending themselves from zombies, without specifying the zombies want to eat brains. (2) The eating-brains is probably fluff. It is common knowledge that zombies try to eat humans' brains, and in the slim chance a reader doesn't know that, they have the zombie article currently linked to read that.
  • Done
  • "five or six horizontal rows and nine columns," This is cited both to PopCap and GamesRaders+ cites (or Refs 7 and 8). PopCap source does give numbers for the amount of rows, but not for the amount of columns. I also saw no specification of the number of columns in the GamesRadar+ source. Did I miss it, or is it covered in another source?
  • Done
  • "The player places different types of plants and fungi on individual squares of the grid" The only citation for this sentence is the GamesRadar review. The source talks about there being a variety of plants and seeds as the game progresses, but never specifically discusses a grid or the player specifically placing a planet on the square of a grid. It also doesn't talk about fungi also being usable to defend against Zombies.
  • Done
  • Per MOS:CITEPUNCT, you must place references after punctuation marks. There are references in the middle of the sentences, something I noticed in the Gameplay section. Check for others.
  • Not Done: That is not what the guideline says. It says that if the reference is located next to a punctuation mark, it should be after the punctuation mark. Citations are allowed to be put mid-sentence as long as it is next to the cited material. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple reference numbers are not in increasing numerical order. "[7][5][11]" "[7][6][9]" "[7][6]" This is what I noticed just reading the gameplay section. Check for others.
  • Done
  • The Critical response section is navigable and well-written, but a couple of spots use full quotes that could be paraphrased or be partial quotes in some sports, and an issue, which I brought up in the peer review, of not using past tense for 2009-published reviews in the third paragraph remains.
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (4/23/21)
  • "generally stylized as a lawn" Why not just say it's a lawn? Why say it's stylized as one? The GamesRadar source citing this statement certainly doesn't put it that way. It just says it's a lawn
  • Done
  • "Each plant has a different style of defense, such as shooting" Why only one attack method listed? I get we're trying to make this a little of a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but if there are multiple types of attacks, why only bring up one? Can't you bring up any other examples that reliable reviews provide, cause I've spotchecked a few of the currently-used review sources and I know they talk about them?
  • Done
  • "by using certain plants that generate sun, like Sunflowers." Again, why only one example listed? The VideoGamer brings up the sun-shrooms, which "produce sun during the night."
  • Done
  • "Different types of zombies have their own special behaviors and their own weaknesses to different plants." Same issue. I know we're not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but I think we're leaving readers in the dust by not giving them examples, especially when they the types of Zombies, especially the dancing and football ones, are enthusiastically covered in reviews. Again, only use the ones brought up in reliable sources so it's not GAMEGUIDE-ish.
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Any more to come here? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've haven't re-looked at the rest of the article, but other commenters are and are giving it a thumbs up, so I'll let them handle the rest, given that I want to work on other varied topics. The incorrect tense in the third paragraph is still not addressed, however. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the incorrect tense in the third paragraph. It was addressed, I simply forgot one of the words. Lazman321 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done
  • Missing alt text
  • Done
  • It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

[edit]

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

  • Per WP:VGBOX the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The current cover art has various PC logos, etc, found a platform neutral one free from of them here [14].
  • Done
  • In the lead and body "Plants vs. Zombies received critical acclaim" 8 versions on Metacritic 2 (iOS) recieved "universal acclaim", DSiware " mixed or average" and rest "generally favorable", not sure how that results in overall critical acclaim.
  • I believe so yes, should be reflected in the lead as well
  • Surely Stephen Notley should be mentioned at least once in development section since Notley was the writer, or the fact he only wrote the almanac section.
  • Done
  • Are there any free images avaliable of development staff or any other relevant images (appears to be this at commons [15] though not sure how copyright works in regards to that).
  • Done: @Spy-cicle: Takahashi agreed to send OTRS an email saying that he will license the image under Commons license. He chose CC-BY-SA 4.0 International and now the image is in the article. By the way, in regards to the cosplay images, the problem is not copyright. The problem is this article does not have a cultural impact section as there is little-to-no information about its cultural impact. The closest would be the cultural references section, but adding a picture of cos players would add nothing to the section or this article. Lazman321 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see nice one on getting that free image. I understand what you mean about the relevance of cosplayers if there is no cultural impact section.
  • The Fan image should have an alt text, and should be on the right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
  • Possible to mention the link to the series article in some way (i.e. it spawned a series including third-person shooters, etc or something)
  • Done
  • The way it was placed seems a little MOS:EGGy, may need to reword a little bit.
  • The release section only mentions a PlayStation Network (should also be linked) port as if it is digital only on ps3 there appears to be a disc version also.
  • Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.
  • There seems to be some strange inconsistent linking in the reference sometimes websites like IGN other times they are not.
  • For example in ref #37 IGN is linked, whilst in refs #40, #44, #45, etc it is not. The website parameters (IGN is just one example) should either be consistently linked or consistently not linked in references (iirc MOS does not mandate which one but may be worth double checking).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've always been told that you only link the first instance of a work in a citation. But, I guess it is allowed to link every instance of a website in a citation. Done. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First reference to readme appears to be dead (url-status should be changed)
  • Done
  • Done
  • The usage of USD $ need MOS:NBSP and the M needs to spelt out on first usage per MOS:CURRENCY or spelt out both times since they are in different sections.
  • Done
  • The nbsps do not appear to be placed correctly (example $11{{nbsp}}billion, see MOS:NBSP).
Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your second set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll circle back to this once I have some more time on my hands, but it is certainly looking better.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
[edit]
  • "The Nintendo DS port was commended for its four new mini-games and its versus mode from the Xbox 360 version, but was considered inferior in its animation and graphics." Yet only one cite to one IGN review is cited.
  • Ref 7 a primary source is acceptable but I think we should really mostly be using secondary sources. I am not saying it cannot be used at all but considering the number of times it is cited that stuff should cited to mostly be cited to secondary sources (from MOS:VG As with most Wikipedia content, gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources. While secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable,)
  • Ref 2 Could you link to the specific where Fan confirms this rather than the whole post (same goes for the archive if possible)
  • Done
  • Ref 4 does not list the author (Earnest Cavalli)
  • Done
  • Ref 8 Date is does not match what it says on wiki, on their website it says May 13, 2009
  • Done
  • Ref 12 No author (Alice Laing)
  • Done
  • For older reviews (like in 2009) are often over a number of different pages like the case for GameSpy and GamePro. For those two for instance are cited 5 and 4 times respectively and I doubt in all 9 cases that you are only referencing the first page. Could you ensure you are citing the correct pages for reviews where there are multiple.
  • Done
  • There are currently some ref errors (36 and 38 for PC Gamer interview and edge)
  • I made a few adjustments here and there
  • Is it clear when development started, do sources mention when (I guess sometime after the release Insaniquarium but if there are no sources that say that then do not worry about) I know it says total time was 3.5 years?
  • It appears the PlayStation ports were published by Sony Online Entertainment not PopCap [16][17][18].
  • Done
  • There is also does not appear to be any said summary of what critics thought of said playstation 3 / psvita ports unlike some of the other consoles there certainly seem to be enough reviews covering it. [19][20]
  • Done for PS-Vita. Not Done for PS3 as for that one, the only reliable source I have access to that I know of is the IGN review. As far as I know, there isn't a significant difference between the Xbox 360 version and the PS3 version.

Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Nice work - made some tweaks. Seems alright on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Qwertyxp2000

[edit]

Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will get to soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non source-related comment - You use both Stephen Notly and Stephen Notely. Which is correct
  • No action needed - while the Reddit thing looks a little dodgy, the verification checks out, so I'd say it's about equivalent to using the subject's social media and is cited very minimally, so its probably fine
  • Who is James Gwertzman? That Slide Share source linked to him looks WP:SPS. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is a primary source. At the time of the creation of the slideshow, James Gwertzman was the vice president of the Asia/Pacific division of PopCap Games located in Shanghai, China. [21][22] Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the body, it's the Suburban Almanac. The two times you cite it, it's Suburben Almanac. Which spelling is correct?
  • Padgadget appears to be a blog, what makes it high-quality RS?
  • WP:VGRS says that Kotaku is reliable post-2010. There is a single 2010 cite to Kotaku that might ought to be replaced to be on the safe side.

I think that's it for formatting/reliability. Will conduct spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/PlantsZombies. No issues detected with copyright or text-source integrity. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing on source review - no issues with copyright or text-source integrity; satisfied with source reliability and text-source integrity. Sourcing seems to be a thorough and representative survey, as well. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • Link "ported".
  • Done
  • " Magic the Gathering" is "Magic: The Gathering".
  • Done
  • "and Swiss Family Robinson" this is odd, so probably best to note that it was the movie, not some game.
  • Done
  • "game took three and half years to make. Rich Werner was the game's main artist, Tod Semple programmed the game, and Laura Shigihara composed the game's...." game game game game...
  • In fact "game" appears 13 times in the lead alone, excluding "gamer" and "gameplay" etc. It's jarringly repetitive.
  • "to casual and hardcore.." to both
  • Done
  • "fastest-selling video game developed by PopCap Games" without context this is meaningless, what did they launch before this that was popular?
  • "A few years after" not encyclopedic.
  • "followed by a series of follow-ups" followed by follow-ups? Repetitive.
  • "ups; including" not a semi-colon, maybe a comma.
  • The engine is mentioned in the infobox but nowhere else.
  • Done
  • If strategy is mentioned in the infobox, shouldn't that also be in the lead as the genre?
  • "game[3][4] in which" move awkward refs to end of sentence.
  • Done
  • "types of plants on" singular, types of plant.
  • Done
  • Zombie doesn't need disambiguation.
  • Done
  • own special behaviors" particular.
  • Comment: I listed examples of their "own special behaviors".
  • I get what "Cactus" is but "Blover"?
  • "can only pick a " only not required.
  • Done
  • "called "sun".The" space.
  • Done
  • "Sunshrooms.[7][6][8] Each" order.
  • Done
  • "type of plant recharges between each placement of the plant" -> "of plant ... of the plant" repetitive and awkward reading.
  • Done
  • "a lane, the lane's Lawnmower will kill all the zombies in that lane " lane three times in one sentence...
  • "drop money when" do you mean "drop sun"

Saving for now, I need to re-boot. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "iddyDinkies.[11][7]" order.
  • Done
  • "Zen Garden.[6][7] The Zen Garden" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "and has the player water and maintain " allows the player.
  • Done
  • "player money" sun?
  • "has some mini-game challenge" why "some"? why not "a"?
  • Done
  • "without a mini-game-type gimmick" why not just "without a mini-game"?
  • How many levels are there?
  • "lanes.[11][9] On" order.
  • Done
  • "On the pool, plants are placed on top of Lily Pads which" -> "Plants are placed on top of Lily Pads in the pool" and why are Lily Pads capitalised?
  • "Zombot's feet and vans" feet and vans? like vehicles?
  • "The player subdues these" The player can subdue...
  • Done
  • "After beating the " completing.
  • Done
  • "other side of each lane.[11][6] Survival"" end of each lane, and order.
  • Done

That takes me to Development. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "make a tower defense game" overlinked.
  • Done
  • "DS. In the initial" merge for better flow.
  • Done
  • "the fact that enemies in tower defense games would never attack the towers was unintuitive" I don't quite follow that, don't enemies attack towers?
  • "which a family defends against" defends what?
  • "by the game Tapper" some context for this would be good, it's somewhat a classic and dates back almost three decades before this game was developed.
  • Done
  • "video games were being released at the time" can you list any examples?
  • "the enemies changed" were changed.
  • Done
  • "But Romero did..." avoid starting sentences with "But..."
  • Done
  • "errors.[28][26] " order.
  • Done
  • "at PopCap Games, PopCap helped" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "based in ... was based in Seattle" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "the plants and zombies descriptions" -> "the plant and zombie descriptions"
  • Done
  • I suspect "the Suburban Almanac" should really be "the Suburban Almanac"
  • Comment: I don't think so, as the Suburban Alamanac is fictional and as a result, may not be a major work. However, since it is based on actual almanacs, there may be a chance you are correct. I can't decide at the moment. Lazman321 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "internal forum. .. internal forum" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "years to make overall" does "overall" add anything?
  • "would later be" why not just "were later"?
  • Done
  • "polishing and fine-tuning" I would suggest that "polishing" is not encyclopedic in tone here.
  • Done
  • Hardcore gaming just redirects to gamer.
  • Done: Changed
  • Couldn't you just say "hardcore and casual gaming"?
  • Done
  • "attract casual gamers. It had" overlinked.
  • Done
  • "It had the player learning by doing actions"" really awkward phrasing.
  • Done
  • Of course, this kind of tutorial is commonplace nowadays, is there any source that this was a novel approach back then?
  • "fun on level paired up with it" I don't follow this.
  • "strategy often had difficulty learning the strategy" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "lowered from 100 to 50 sun," without context this makes no sense. Perhaps just "halved" would be better unless you want to discuss the whole "sun" value/price/acquisition rate in more detail?
  • Done
  • "Early in the development of Plants vs. Zombies was spent brainstorming" this doesn't parse for me, maybe "Early in the development of Plants vs. Zombies, time was spent brainstorming.." perhaps?
  • Done
  • "a big mouth to shoot projectiles out of its mouth " repetitive poor prose.
  • Done: Rewrote to be more concise.
  • "shoot projectiles out ... it shoots projectiles" likewise...
  • Done
  • "plant crushes enemies" zombies?
  • Done
  • "placed next to plants" no need for italics.
  • Done
  • "51 types of zombies" zombie.
  • Done
  • "designing the fight against him at the end of the game" so is he a Boss (video games)? Link that.
  • Done
  • "on their father, as their father" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "these songs were reactionary songs" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "playing through it" it through.
  • Done
  • "song was inspired by the song" repetitive.
  • Done

That takes me to "Promotion and release". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "eventually released" when?
  • "The edition was" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "the port's release" link port here too.
  • "a tweaked interface" not encyclopedic tone, perhaps "modified".
  • Done
  • "and added back in the Survival mode and the Mini-Games mode" -> "and restored the Survival and Mini-Games modes"
  • Done
  • Link iOS.
  • Done
  • "games, etc" I don't like "etc" in an encyclopedic article. What else was the "etc"?
  • It's "Amazon Appstore" and we have an article.
  • Done
  • "On June 23, 2011, the game was ported to" no, I assume it was released on that platform that date, not ported on that date. Same applies to subsequent sentences here.
  • Done
  • Link Xbox Live.
  • Done
  • "as a singular copy and as a " -> "both on its own and as part of .."
  • Done
  • "versus mode, a co-op mode, and a new mini-game mode"" modes were previously capitalised.
  • "2011[83] with" comma after year.
  • Done
  • "being its publisher" as its publisher.
  • Done
  • Link PlayStation Vita.
  • Done

That's down to Reception. More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "game created by PopCap Games.[112] It quickly became PopCap Games's best" overlinked and repetitive, maybe: "game created by PopCap Games, quickly becoming their best"
  • Done
  • "James Gwertzman" who?
  • "from hardcore gamers" this was (IIRC) linked before but to a different target?
  • Done: I removed the link. Previously, I changed the redirect itself for consistency.
  • "Live, reports that" reported.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "number one in amount of sales and amount of money grossed" no need for "amount of".
  • Done
  • "received positive reviews" I would dare say "very"
  • Done
  • "all versions received generally..." this sentence has versions three times, repetitive.
  • Done: Replaced the two others with "According to Metacritic, the only version that didn't receive "generally positive reviews" or "universal acclaim" is the DSiware version, which received "mixed or average reviews".[103]" Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "premise; He clarified" no need for cap after semi-colon.
  • Done
  • "Rock, Paper, Shotgun " according to our article there are no commas.
  • Done
  • "at some moments" sounds Germanic, perhaps "sometimes"?
  • Done
  • "of new units" first time you've used the term "unit" so needs reword or explanation.
  • Done

Gotta rush now, more soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done with this now. Also, I apologize for not doing some of the release section stuff earlier. Lazman321 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some noted the game's humor" you've already explicitly noted a quote which says "the game's sense of humor will really have you grinning" so that's obvious, no?
  • " new exclusive mini" sounds a bit adverty, do you mean it's a mini-game only available on the iPad?
  • "mode.[107][83][121] " order.
  • Done
  • "The Nintendo DS port"" overlinked.
  • Done
  • "Awards earned" strictly its Awards and nominations
  • Done
  • "laid off as part of the systematic lay-offs in" repetitive.
  • Done
  • "named Plants vs. Zombies 2 was" overlinked.
  • Done
  • "third third-person shooter," likewise.
  • "is currently in" as of?

Thats it, just the refs to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:: Done with this set, ready for the refs. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 - Popcap -> PopCap
  • Done
  • Ref 30 - Slideshare -> SlideShare
  • Done
  • Ref 41 - space after "?
  • Ref 43 - is NG his surname? Should it be Ng?
  • Done: Yes, Ng is his surname. It is apparently a common surname from China.
  • Ref 48, 52 etc - not archived, any reason?
  • Done
  • Ref 79 - IGN not linked.
  • Done
  • Ref 117 - for me NYT is a subscription only access.
  • Done
  • Ref 122 - Nick, not Nicj.
  • Done

And that ... is that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:: Done with all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Article is in excellent condition, reads well, is comprehensive, sourced well and meets all the bits of MOS that I know of. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 26 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [23].

Paper Mario

[edit]
Nominator(s): Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a sub-series of the Mario franchise, Paper Mario. Someone at Nintendo decided, "hey, the graphics on the Nintendo 64 are not good", and made everything two-dimensional instead. This game was called, and the department team worked overtime on this one, Paper Mario. The game was critically acclaimed. They released a sequel, and it was universally acclaimed. The developers then decided to switch up the genre a bit for the third game, Super Paper Mario, and it was simply acclaimed. Then they released Sticker Star, and everyone hated it. Color Splash, hated even more. The Origami King, eh.

In short, it's a video game series once acclaimed but recently fell to average reception. Still popular, however.

When this article was created by me, I got some initial thoughts from PresN. It also received a very short peer review, a copyedit from Willbb234, slight touchups from (Oinkers42) and through all this Blue Pumpkin Pie watched like a hawk. Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RetiredDuke

[edit]
  • Minor comments to start off:
Thank you for the ping. I won't be able to continue the review though, as I'm a bit short on time right now. Good luck with the nomination! RetiredDuke (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HumanxAnthro

[edit]

Hi, Panini, and good work on the article. However, there are a few major problems I have:

  1. There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature discussing the franchise, which I found pages of thanks to a simple Google search.
  2. This may seem minor, but I'm not a fan of the way the article is currently organized. The gameplay section is fine and does its job of describing the general gameplay of the series, but an issue arises after that section. Most of the "development" and "reception" sections (apart from the paragraph about the criticism of the last three games) describe specific games instead of the franchise as a whole, and the content in those "Games" sub-sections are too little and could be proper length if stuff from the development and reception sections were combined to those.
  3. Speaking of reception being only about particular titles, that's the biggest problem when it comes to its compliance of 1b; there's nothing about the entire franchise's impact and legacy, as there is with the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise featured article. Come on, this is a successful Nintendo franchise, there's no coverage about how the Paper Mario games have influenced the gaming industry?
  4. Why are there no citations for the release dates in the "Games" section?
    Cited

I won't state oppose because I don't think this article is a lost cause: I don't doubt the game's prose efforts from the users Panini mentioned above, and from a quick skim, most of the citations (apart from IGN not being formatted as a work in one cite, and a Metacritic source incorrectly formatted as a work while its formatted in a publisher in others) look well-formatted and are from reliable, quality sources. But I do think the critiques I imposed above are valid. Any thoughts? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • HumanxAnthro, before I begin, looking through the book sources I did not find much other than this, and most other instances the games are used as an example. Also, unlike the entirety of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, these games did not move mountains; there isn't any big, cultural impact or references in other media. Although the first couple of paragraphs in the Sonic the Hedgehog article are about reviewers' thoughts of how the series evolved over time, this info is already infused with the critical reception section. Panini🥪 01:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ping PresN here, see what his thoughts are on this and if my legacy/reception merge alternative is alright. Panini🥪 13:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comments. Well, if there REALLY is no coverage about the general franchise's impact, then.... Support for completeness. There are a couple of minor issues (like those citation and prose ones I mentioned) but I think those are easily fixable. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

I'll do a full review on this soon! One thing I'd note for now is that ref 28 has a cite error. GeraldWL 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed

Sorry for the long wait! Doing the review below. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (HATNOTE) Is the "Super Paper Mario" thing needed? If you argue that there is the word "Paper Mario", I'd argue that other video games in the series also have it. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why it's here is just in case readers might get the games confused with the Super Mario series, which this is a branch of. In my opinion, I think it's harmless.
  • (GAMEPLAY) The gameplay image is too small for me. Mind enlarging it a bit?
  • Yeah, but it made me have to move every other image in the article around to fit it. Thanks for that.
  • (GAMEPLAY) "a number of explorable areas, known as worlds"-- link virtual world in "worlds"?
  • Virtual world and simply "world" are different things; worlds are different sections in a game, like how New Super Mario Bros. Wii has "World 1", "World 2", etc. shown in this image. The "Virtual World" is simply just something or somewhere on the internet where users interact, such as a chat forum or a game on virtual reality.
  • (GAMEPLAY) "(XP, known in-game as Star Points, or SP)"-- I think it'd be better to change the first comma with a semicolon.
  • Changed
  • (GAMEPLAY) "RPG elements, such as XP, allies"-- shouldn't "XP" be plural, considering "allies" is?
  • Honestly, that's just not how the term is used; they call it XP, plural or not, probably because XPs sounds stupid. For this instance, though, I referred to it as its full term to avoid confusion.
  • (GAMES) "In Sticker Star"-- I'd rather change "Sticker Star" to "it", since the full name is said just a sentence ago.
  • Changed
  • (GAMES) "When Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, they find the town to be abandoned." Suddenly jumping to the synopsis without clarifying it in real-world context, like the above subsections do. I'd change it "In it, Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which is discovered to be abandoned."
  • Changed
Oops, sorry, the watchlist pushed this page down and down and down. But yeah, supporting. GeraldWL 17:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Panini🥪 02:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

Promise I'll get to this within the week, if not sooner. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, yeah, me too for yours. I cannot do it tonight as I've had a busy day and need to wind down. Probably tomorrow, as I've also promised two others a peer review so I'll make tomorrow a review day. Panini🥪 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to work through the prose and references and see how far I get.
  • Lead
  • I've never seen the word "sub-series". It might be a little jargon-y and there could be a plainer way of explaining its relationship to the overall franchise, and what makes it separate from the other platform games.
  • The commas in the sentence about the allies and antagonists add a lot of wordiness, in two sub-clauses. I feel like you could drop them without losing much information.
  • Removed, but left "Primarily Bowser".
  • "game to be Paper Mario," → "game to become Paper Mario,"
  • Fixed
  • "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to keep each game's style, such as in genre and combat, different from the previous game." This type of sentence isn't terrible, but trying to avoid run-on sentences with lots of commas is something to strive for. How about "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to each game to have a different style, varying the genre and combat system for each new title."
  • Changed but replaced "and combat system" to "and core gameplay element" as that is what's most often changed (there was also a typo in there).
  • "transition from role-playing games to more the action-adventure genre" → "transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure".
  • Changed
  • "The new format of the games, starting from Paper Mario: Sticker Star onward, received mixed reception, with complaints regarding the new genre style but praise for the writing, characters, music, and reimagined paper aesthetic visuals." → "With the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the series began receiving complaints about its change in genre, but still continued to earn praise for its writing, characters, music, and paper-inspired visuals."
  • You, my friend, are very good with words. You should consider Extraversion.
  • Gameplay
  • You don't need a semi-colon when a period will do. Truthfully, this whole sentence is a slew of commas that should be broken up into smaller sentences.
  • What can I say, I, for one, am a comma guy, as they not only help combine sentences, but, in my opinion, help with the flow of transition.
  • Maybe find a way to rephrase, without using "each game" so soon after each other.
  • Changed the first instance to series.
  • "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or help fight in combat." → (parallelism) "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or helping fight in combat."
  • Fixed
  • "but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used" → "but uses up a finite amount of flower points (FP)."
  • Done
  • "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead" → "Super Paper Mario is more of a platform game compared to first two role-playing games in the series."
  • Done
  • Unclear what you mean here: "Although Mario does not fight alongside unique partners"
  • Done
  • "In addition, allies known as Pixls, which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels, can be summoned and used" → "In addition, Mario can summon allies known as Pixls, who grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels."
  • Done
  • "the Paper Mario games are more aimed towards the action-adventure genre" → "the series shifted towards the action-adventure genre."
  • Done
  • "RPG elements, such as XP, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced." → "The series reduced its emphasis on RPG elements, with no experience points, fewer allies, and a simpler plot."
  • Done
  • Instead, the games are more based on puzzle-solving elements, and, although combat is still turn-based, each game has a unique strategy element in lieu of XP." → "Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat."
  • Changed
  • Games
  • "Paper Mario also saw multiple re-releases, namely on" → "The game was later re-released on"
  • Changed
  • "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and has stolen..." → "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and steals..." (parallelism)
  • Changed
  • "Paper Mario's puzzles put emphasis on Mario's allies; most puzzles are based upon the skills of Mario's partners, all of which have a unique ability." → "Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities."
  • Changed
  • "The story highlight Rogueport, which contains a closed portal that holds great fortune. When Mario and Peach get involved in the discovery, Peach is kidnapped by the X-Nauts, who are also aiming to open the portal." → "The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune. Soon after, Peach is kidnapped..."
  • Changed
  • Again I might just replace the semicolon with a period, but this might be a matter of style than a hard requirement.
  • I'm also a semicolon enthusiast; I'll leave it in for now.
  • "which he can use to destroy the universe and replace it with a perfect one" → "so that he can destroy and remake the universe".
  • Changed but added a "to his liking" in to explain why a little more.
  • "To prevent this, Mario, aided by Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi, set out to collect the eight "Pure Hearts"." → "Mario sets out to stop Count Bleck by collecting the eight "Pure Hearts", with the help of Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi."
  • Changed
  • "Royal Stickers inside the comet" → "Royal Stickers living inside the comet"
  • Added
  • "six Royal Sticker" -- plural
  • Probably just a typo
  • "using coins as currency" -- don't need the currency part
  • Removed
  • "pre-determines" do you mean "plans"?
  • Plans sounded a bit off to me so I replaced it with prepares.
  • "against enemies in combat" -- don't really need this. It's implied from being an attack.
  • Removed
  • "not visible in the regular camera angle" → "not visible from the standard camera angle".
  • We're getting F a n c y
  • "After noticing the island is also color drained, they are prompted by Huey who explains how six Big Paint Stars give the island color, but the six stars have been scattered, later to be revealed because of Bowser." → "After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing."
  • Changed
  • Having trouble understanding this one. Try to rephrase. "The player can use the Wii U GamePad which allows Mario to use the "cutout" ability, which peels a part of the environment and reveals locations that were not visible prior."
  • "The player can use the Wii U Gamepad to trace a hole in the paper environment to reveal secrets, known as the "Cutout" ability."
  • "To engage in combat, Mario uses cards that, much like Sticker Star, pre-determine what ability Mario is going to use or how he will attack the enemy." → "Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target."
  • Changed
  • You could probably just break this into two shorter sentences. "When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly, with many other residents, including Bowser, meeting a similar fate."
  • "some elements of RPGs" → "some role-playing elements"
  • Changed
  • "For example, allies have been reintroduced, but don't serve as much use compared to the first two games in the series." → "For example, the game reintroduces allies, albeit in a stripped down role compared to the first two Paper Mario games."
  • My favorite fancy sentence change so far.
  • It is a little weird to put the spinoff games out of order, but I recognize this is a series within a series within a series. Just something to note in case someone else brings it up.
  • Again, I might try to find a way to explain the relationship between the series without the jargon of sub-series.
  • I settled with spin-off
  • "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book in the library of Peach's Castle which contains the Paper Mario universe." → "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book that contains the Paper Mario universe." (you don't really lose any explanation this way)
  • Changed
  • "After the Paper Mario residents spread all over the Mushroom Kingdom, the two Bowser's of both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach." --> "This causes the two universes to cross over, with the Paper Mario residents spreading all over the Mushroom Kingdom. The two Bowsers from both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach."
  • Changed
  • "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario; Mario and Luigi can perform their usual actions, and Paper Mario can do paper-like actions such as folding into a shuriken in battle" → "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat."
  • Changed
  • "In combat, he can make multiple copies of himself, creating a large stack that deals more damage as a special attack." → "Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack."
  • Changed
That's quite a bit and I'm going to leave it there. But should let you get started. I will try to work through the Development and Reception soon. The sources look generally good so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Shooterwalker, for the review. I did plan to get to your article today, but Plants vs. Zombies had some big prose issues it burned me out before I got to Namco. I'll get to it tomorrow. Panini🥪 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trying a few more suggestions. Thanks for the kind words! Two general rules that help me write better:
  1. Try to avoid sentences where there are more than 3 clauses (e.g.: a sentence with more than 2 commas). Sort of like Wikipedia articles, sentences have size limits where it's more appropriate to split, shorten, or re-organize. (More commas for lists are a funny exception that you can get away with sometimes, especially at the end of a sentence.)
  2. Vary the pacing between simple and complex sentences. My last sentence was simple but not necessarily short, and this one is a little more complex without being too long.
  3. Avoid passive voice, especially in a more complex sentence, because it makes it harder to understand who is doing what. "The game was designed as..." vs. "Nintendo designed the game as...". Or even shorten that to "The design was..." to make it flow in a larger sentence.
Onto the review...
  • Development and history
  • I suggest revisiting how these paragraphs are broken up, just to really organize each paragraph around a game, or the period between games. It's possible that all the attention on "announcements" is adding clutter without adding much information, but use your judgment if the announcement is important to understanding the series history.
  • "Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro after he was hired as an employee by Nintendo to port games on the Famicom Disk System to cartridges." I think make it clearer that they hired the company but it was effectively one person at first.
  • Put an "on his own" in there
  • "After his success in developing video games himself, such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, Narihiro hired more developers and expanded the company into Intelligent Systems" → "Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, which allowed him to expand his company with additional artists and developers."
  • "now modern-day Square Enix" you could drop this without losing much, and have a simpler sentence.
  • Removed. I don't like them, anyway.
  • "To try to get fans interested in the genre," drop this too, since you say it better at the end of the sentence
  • Removed
  • "following this," can cut this
  • Removed
  • "because he believed players would be tired of low-polygon graphics, as well as an attempt to bring out the "cuteness" in the characters." → "because he believed players might prefer a game with "cute" 2D character designs instead of another game with low-polygon 3D graphics."
  • "The game had a four-year development process; it was released in August 2000, late into the console's existence with the Nintendo GameCube about to be announced." → "Development took four years, and was released in August 2000, towards the end of the console's lifecycle."
  • Changed.
  • "The Thousand-Year Door was announced at the 2003 Game Developers Conference, and was announced to be the direct sequel to the previous game." You say announced twice, and this could probably be a shorter sentence. Try "At the 2003 Game Developers Conference, Nintendo announced a direct sequel, The Thousand-Year Door."
  • Fiddled with this a bit but overall changed.
  • "in July 2004 in Japan and late 2004 worldwide" For the sake of the summary it might be easier just to say 2004.
  • Changed
  • "the Mario & Luigi series started in 2003 with Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance, developed by the now defunct AlphaDream" → "Developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series, releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance in 2003." (You could probably drop the semi colon before and just do a full stop.)
  • Changed, and for the second suggestion, no;
  • "The future producer of the Paper Mario series" Maybe bring this up later more naturally, so it doesn't break the flow and chronology.
  • "which he says influences changes to the staff or a game's core system" → "leading them to explore bigger changes in each game's gameplay and design team." (This is something that hasn't quite happened yet, and is about to happen.)
  • Changed
  • "the game's director, Ryota Kawade, " → "game director Ryota Kawade"
  • Changed
  • "When the idea of being able to switch through 2D and 3D was conceptualized..." Try breaking this into two shorter sentences
  • Split like that one kid when he accidentally pulled the fire alarm.
  • "Super Paper Mario was originally planned to be one of the last games released for the GameCube, which was announced through a trailer at E3 2006," → "At E3 2006, Super Paper Mario was announced as one of the last games planned for release on the GameCube." (Full stop)
  • "when it was switched over to the Wii its motion controls were not implemented" → "it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls."
  • "was fully announced" → "were fully announced"
  • Fixed
  • "The developers, upon request from Miyamoto who was no longer the series producer, did not" → "As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers..."
  • Changed
  • "Additionally, he also asked for the combat to be changed due to similarities to The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove the story because not many players found it entertaining and he believed the game would be fine without a story" → "Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove most of the story elements due to early feedback from fans." (simpler sentence, and you have the quote off to the right)
  • "Core changes in Sticker Star and further games in the series were made to help introduce the series to a new audience" → "Starting with Sticker Star, the series transformed to try and reach a new audience."
  • Changed
  • "prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise" → "limited outside developers from modifying or adding characters to the Mario universe." (gets you most of the clarity, especially when read with the next sentence)
  • Maybe another few examples where a full stop would be better than a semi-colon.
  • "last mainline game" needs clarification and could probably be rephrased. Could we just say game?
  • Clarified a little bit, meant to say "last game in the series"
  • "The artists made the worldbuilding look entirely out of paper," There's maybe a better way to say this.
  • Changed
  • "through a Nintendo Direct" could be "on Nintendo Direct" or even "through Nintendo Direct"?
  • Changed to "via"
  • Maybe end that last sentence with a full stop. The negative fan reception is a separate event and separate thought.
  • Changed
  • "The game released worldwide in early October" what year? do we need to say worldwide for a Nintendo game?
  • Fixed
  • "in a video in early September" Don't really need to say "in a video"
  • Removed
  • "in mid-May" is missing a full stop
  • Yeah, I just don't like them that much.
  • "He stated how due to not being able to satisfy every fan, generally the core fans of the series and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts, which is why The Origami King used origami as a new paper-like theme." This could be simplified a lot.
  • Simplified
  • I'd say the last paragraph of this section does have a few run-on sentences that could be shortened and/or split.
  • Fiddled a bit
Reception
  • Maybe try to re-state the timeline for the reader as you start this section off. e.g.: Paper Mario is the first game, it's from the year 2000. Probably doesn't need more than a few well-placed words, but if it starts to add clutter, you can try its own sentence.
  • Maybe move the 2006 list ranking to the end of this paragraph, to distinguish between its immediate reception in 2000 and its long-term legacy.
  • Fiddily-diddled.
  • I think my last two comments also apply to each additional paragraph, establishing a year, if not some other marker of how the series was changing (maybe the platform?). It would help those paragraphs flow, and help the reader keep the timeline straight. As is, it just feels like a few disjointed paragraphs about different games.
  • Skipping to the end, the paragraph about the three games since Sticker Star is actually really informative. I saw one of the above FA reviewers comment that this article could use some more discussion of the series as a whole, and I think this paragraph is a great example. I know that's difficult if the sources don't exist. But maybe there's a way to re-organize it to have the reception feel more like a general comment on the evolution of the series, instead of a series of separate receptions for separate games. It sometimes feels like we are losing the forest by staring at each tree.
  • Shooterwalker, Just for confirmation, there should still be prose commentary for each individual game, however? Just some extra on the series as a whole?
  • "Additionally, the plot was also slightly criticized for being overly complicated" → "Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated,"
  • Ctrl C Ctrl V'd.
  • If you have three reviewers in the citation who agree, do we really need to name any of them?
  • You're right, Eurogamer doesn't deserve attention. Frikin' Europeans, man.
  • "the game's reception was mainly mixed and criticized for being centered around stickers" → "was mixed." Saying mixed and criticized is two different things, and you talk about the criticisms later.
  • I think I was trying to imply, "the game's reception was mainly mixed, with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic." I made the change.
  • "Thing Stickers were called" → "Reviewers called the stickers"
  • Changed to "Reviewers called the Thing Stickers" as "Thing Stickers" are a different thing than stickers.
  • "disdain" is a strong word. Just making sure that's what you mean.
  • Oh yeah. Talk to any Paper Mario fan and they'll come to an agreement on "this game is the absolute worst".
  • I see why the announcement of Color Splash is important, but you should try to keep a clearer chronology between the announcement and the game itself. Re-organize the first two sentences a bit.
  • Re-organized the first two sentences a bit
  • "lack of purpose" isn't clear.
  • Changed to "lack of overall necessity to the game".
  • "Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins in the game was to buy cards for combat, which in return awarded coins which he believed made the system pointless." Try to say this in fewer words.
  • Fiddled
  • "as it returned old RPG elements and removed other faulty ones in the games before" → "as it re-added beloved RPG elements and removed other elements that had received criticism."
  • Changed
  • "considering their hiding spots and humorous dialogue" → "praising their humorous dialog and interesting hiding spots."
  • Changed
  • "The game's combat system was both appreciated and disliked" → "Reviewers gave the game's combat system a mixed reception"
  • C ha n G ed
  • You could drop the semicolon in the "other media" section.
  • Dropped
  • Related to my comment about this section more generally, the sales section could benefit from trying to make it flow as a comment on the whole series, instead of several separate sentences about several separate games. It might be as simple as using more words like "also" or "again", and other comparison words that show a when a streak is forming or being broken.
  • Added words.
That takes us up to the end and should give you a lot to work with. I know that's a lot of comments but it's on the right track. Feel free to ask any questions and we can revisit after a round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, thanks for the review! I've been more busy recently and I do hope I have your patience for the time being. I'll get to your reception concerns in the near future. Panini🥪 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being busy. Work at your own pace. Would very much like to see this article improved to FA status. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to check in with support. It would help to have another reviewer take a thorough look on the prose, but it's generally up to standard, in my view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Support from DWB

[edit]
  • "In the series, Mario is tasked on a quest to explore the Mushroom Kingdom" - Tasked on a quest sounds weird, would "tasked to explore" or "tasked with a quest" be more appropriate?
  • Well, he's not going out and having fun for the heck of it, "quest" means he has an official goal. So it makes sense in its right.
(talk page stalker) Actually it doesn't. It's not grammatical. One is tasked with a quest. Or it could be 'sent on a quest'. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Gog, don't call my grammar out like that. It's embarrassing! But yeah, changed. Panini!🥪 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Mario and an opponent take turns attacking one another" - Just to clarify, is it only ever one opponent or can it be more?
  • Ah, good catch, changed to "one or more".
  • " feature elements similar to that of a role-playing video game (RPG)." - "feature elements similar to that of a TYPICAL role-playing video game (RPG).
  • Added (and made another change)
  • "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead." Maybe clarify it is the third game in the series.
  • Mentioned
  • "RPG elements, such as experience points, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced. Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat.[17]" - I don't think you need to individually source allies and plot, when Ref 17 is used at the end of the sentence anyway.
  • Fiddled
  • The gameplay section is OK, I'm not a fan of images just being on top of each other but the sections are too short to really stagger them.
  • THe development and history section though... The logo images should either be a multi-image box or staggered, and the quote should be staggered from the crew photos.
  • Put the logos in a multi-image box (good idea), and moved the quote down a paragraph
  • "Color Splash was initially neglected when it was announced, but received generally positive reviews after release. " - Do you mean "ignored" or "interest was low"? Neglected sounds like the studio didn't care.
  • I went spicy and changed it to "derided"
  • I feel like "In other media" should be the last of the things in that section that it is otherwise dealing with reception.
  • Moved
  • There's a Red Link for DICE awards.
  • Yes, it's supposed to urge the article's creation. It is definitely notable enough to have its own article, considering its many other annual ceremonies have one too.
  • Added
Darkwarriorblake, thanks for the review! That should be everything. Panini🥪 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job Panini. Reading through again I notice that the last paragraph of the lede has two sentences that open with "despite this". I think the second one would be easy to reword to make the whole section read better.
  • I feel like the last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of games in the series since this whole thing is a summary. Something like (and I'm not saying this is the right phrasing) "The series comprises seven games, beginning with Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 in 2000, to the most recent game, Paper Mario: The Origami King, released for the Nintendo Switch in 2020."
  • Maybe add a date and/or the numerical entry for the mention of Sticker Star in the third paragraph to clarify its positioning in the series and around when it started receiving complaints. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Paper_Mario_Logo.png: the FURs claim the image is cover art, but then the tag gives it as a logo - which is correct?
  • Changed; see below.
  • File:Paper_Mario_The_Thousand_Year_Door_Combat.png: the FUR does not provide an adequate rationale for how the use of this image benefits the article - it seems to be almost entirely identical to the lead image, which serves a quite different purpose.
  • I've explained further its purpose in the article.
  • It has, I've since added, "not only graphically improved from the game prior, the games following introduced gimmicks that made combat more complex and such combat varies from game to game. Here is where the combat is seen in its simplest form."
  • The same is true for File:Super_Paper_Mario_Gameplay.png. Generally speaking, the more non-free works you have in a particular article, the stronger the rationale needed for each, and this doesn't cut it.
  • Removed it.
  • Ditto File:Paper_Mario_Color_Splash_Example.jpeg, which is also missing a source
  • Sourced. The image is to emphasize the whole point of the paper-like graphics.
  • Oh, I thought you meant sources as in references in the article, not the website where its found. Wile looking for the source, I couldn't find it so I simply replaced it with an image where a source exists.
  • Oh, should've mentioned I had yet to do this one...
  • You are the third-ish person to believe the logo to be public domain and not fair use; I've since changed its criteria.

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will take a look at this. Probably gonna claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Destructoid is a situational source based on author's qualifications. What are Chris Carter's credentials? Ditto for Jordan Devore? Johnathan Holmes? (Disclosure: I take a much dimmer view of this source than most, so I'm probably questioning it a bit more than others would)
  • Please correct me if you're looking for something specific, I'm not too familiar with what exactly I'm looking for to prove credibility. But here's what I found:
  • Every other instance I found it easier to remove or replace with something more reliable.
  • GamersHell is listed as unreliable at WP:VGRS
  • Replaced
  • Be consistent with formatting. For instance, US Gamer vs USgamer vs USGamer
  • Should be fixed
  • Ref 58 - IGN appears to sometimes have unreliable non-staff content, especially older stuff. Is JKR staff, or is this not going to be a usable source for FA?
  • Changed
  • Ref 62 - I'm not convinced that 3ds.nintendo.life.com is the right way to cite this - this looks like Nintendo Life should be the publisher to me.
  • Fixed
  • Ref 68 (Destructoid, Carter) needs an accessdate
  • Source removed
  • "CESA Games White Papers. Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association." - Too vague of a citation. Which year's are we doing? It looks like some of these may be available online, so is there a URL?
  • "2020CESAゲーム白書 (2020 CESA Games White Papers). Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association. 2020. ISBN 978-4-902346-42-8." - Is this a book? If it's more than like 20 pages long, can we get page numbers?
    Using this, I found this. But I don't know how to cite it from there... Panini!🥪 12:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's evidently a book then. Use the title, publisher, publishing location, year, and isbn (it doesn't seem to have a specific author). It's also long enough you'll need page numbers as well, and if it's in Japanese, then you'll need to indicate that in the citation. @Panini!: - In what form did you access this work? Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, Considering how I have no knowledge of book sources, I found it at List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games. Is doing so a bad thing? Working on citing now. Panini!🥪 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I got this far:
    2020CESAゲーム白書 [2020 CESA Games White Papers] (in Japanese). Japan: Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association. 2020. ISBN 978-4-902346-42-8.
    But I'm unsure on where and how I can cite its pages. I sent a message to WT:VG to see if anyone has it. Unless if there's a different way I can look through it? It's about 300 pages long. Panini!🥪 14:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Found and hunted down the user who put the citation into the list article; I've got full info for one, and am working on the other. Panini!🥪 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. The potential attribution statement below and finishing off these CESA things are about all that's outstanding yet. Hog Farm Talk 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished the CESA sources, working on attribution.
  • Ref 92 lacks publisher
  • Fixed
  • Be consistent with Metacritic vs www.metacritic.com
  • Seems like one slipup; fixes
  • ""Paper Mario 3DS Review". Desructoid. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved November 6, 2012." (ref 110) - Lacks date. Lacks author. Spelling error in Destructoid
  • Replaced altogether
  • Ref 120 lacks accessdate
  • Fixed
  • Vice Media is listed as non-consensus at WP:RSP, gonna say it's probably not high-quality RS for FA usage
  • Removed
  • Ref 141 (Jeff Grubb) lacks the publisher
  • Fixed
  • Ref 145 is missing publisher
  • Fixed

Checks for test-source integrity and copyright violations will be at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/Paper Mario. Will be doing those now. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with saying this is copyright compliant, but want to see the replies to some of the spot checks for source-text integrity questions.

  • I do have some concerns about statements needing attributed. I saw several spots where "critics" were said to say something, when it was only based on one or two critics. Attribution really needed unless it's being stated that it's a widespread view
    Removed, rewritten, and sources added. The Origami King seemed to be the worse case of this.
  • Not sure that the see also link to Vivian is really that useful
  • Removed
  • Why does the units sold table not have a sales total for Color Splash?
  • Simply because full sales numbers don't exist, from my knowledge. In the article, "Although the number of worldwide sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales totalled 63,000 as of July 2020."

Hog Farm Talk 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Hog Farm. I will most likely work on this in the near future. Panini!🥪 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, finished the CESA sources and attributed. Anything else you would like to look at or bring attention to? Panini!🥪 01:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wikibenboy94

[edit]

Sorry for the delay in completing this review. This ended up being a lot bigger than I anticipated with regards to prose improvements. Not I'm decrying the quality of your written work, but I've included a lot of changes, perhaps to a nitpicky degree, that a copy-editor would likely pick up on. On the topic of this, and while you've noted it did have one in the past, I would definitely recommend another copy-edit (Twofingered Typist, who I see copy-edited The Origami King, I would ask for again; he also helped me for my peer review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered). The below suggestions/improvements are more of a helping-hand in getting the prose that bit better before a copy-edit. Feel free to disregard any of the following changes you disagree with.

Lead
I would include the word "released" somewhere in the last line of the first paragraph, preferably before the year ("on the Nintendo 64 released in 2000"). Also, there's more of a structure if you moved "the most recent being" to before The Origami King rather than after, as "the first being" is used before the title of Paper Mario.
Done.
"After Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro, Nintendo was planning to release a successor to Super Mario RPG, which Nintendo had Intelligent Systems develop". When did these events occur? I would definitely cite a release year for Super Mario RPG at the very least.
Done.
"Resulted in the game becoming" in my opinion sounds better than "led the game to become".
Done.
"This led the series to slowly transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure". Omit the mention of "games".
Omitted.
"The first two games in the series received critical acclaim, being praised for their story, characters, and unique gameplay. The series later received multiple installments". While the first two games may have received the most acclaim, the wording of this places emphasis on them and almost treats the successive titles like an afterthought. Also "later" is vague, and makes it seem like there was a large gap between the second and third releases.
Unafterthoughted.
I think there needs to be a reshuffling of the wording in the latter two paragraphs. There are two lines outlining reception, which can be condensed into one, and the first two sentences of the second paragraph should be moved to the end of the first paragraph. We would then have one paragraph focusing on development and the genre changes made to the series, and the other on reception and the response to the changes.
Sounds like a plan.
Gameplay
"that contain puzzles and interactive elements. For example, Mario can hit objects with his hammer, which needs to be completed to progress in the story". "Need" is the correct tense; "needs" makes it sound like it's referring to just one occurrence.
Oops
"These locations". "These" is redundant.
Changed
"and contain coins and other various collectibles". Include some examples of collectibles.
Exampled
"Mario will encounter multiple allies". Is it obligatory that multiple allies are encountered, or is it only some of them? If it's a minority Mario is forced to meet I would change this to "can encounter".
Yeah; the first two games you are forced to team up with someone because certain puzzles need an ally to complete them; the recent games have that one person that is just, "Hey, I could help you" and sticks around the whole game until they die.
"when Mario and his other present allies". "Other" is redundant.
Unredudanted
"Mario and his allies can either perform a regular attack, where they time a button-press on the controller to deal more damage". The player is the one timing the button-press, not Mario.
"The player"ed
"but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used". I would say "in-game statistic" is redundant.
When looking at other video game articles with complicated plots they often introduce locations or content without explaining their significance or purpose. I try to explain new details to someone who isn't unfamiliar with something. For example, I was reading the plot of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train a while back, and it reads out of nowhere, "Enmu, Lower Rank One of the Twelve Kizuki". As a non-anime fan, what does that mean?
"which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels". Change to "abilities for combat and traversing levels".
Changed
I did notice Shooterwalker made six suggestions to the prose in this section last month but you haven't made these changes; had you missed them or just disagreed with them?
Probably missed them, I'll give it a second look.
These were taken care of a while back, I just never marked them off. I did so now.
Games
"Mario must then save[...]" "then" is redundant.
Unthened
"Mario must then save the imprisoned Star Spirits, defeat Bowser, and save the Mushroom Kingdom. [...] Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities". As gameplay centres on puzzles and unique abilities, rather than characters to alternately save and defeat which falls more under story (and I don't know if using "which" was a mistake but it doesn't make grammatical sense), I would re-phrase to "Gameplay centres around Mario and his allies solving puzzles, with many of the challenges[...]"
Yeah, it seems like a typo. Used your suggestion.
"which take up a portion of FP when executed". I presume this means filling up a portion, and not deducting it? If so, change to "fill".
The first is correct; using this video as an example, the player only has ten FP and must use it sparingly. I've tweaked the wording to emphasize this, though.
"The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune". Change to "The game is set mainly in Rogueport". Also "great fortune" seems a bit vague.
Changed
"Peach e-mails Mario, not informed about her kidnapping, that he needs to search". Mentioning Mario being uninformed is unnecessary.
Tweaked
"Mario is given special abilities under a curse". Change to "as a result of a curse". Also, if the curse is important to the plot, I would include it in the story summary above.
Tweaked
"such as folding into a paper airplane and gliding, or folding into a boat". The abilities of the plane is given, but not those of the boat. If the abilities are obvious (gliding and floating), I recommend removing "gliding".
Fair
Trimmed to remove repeated use of "folding into a[...].
"Contrarily, audience members will leave if Mario performs poorly". Does this affect the amount of items he receives?
Shuffled a bit
"battles take place in the overworld in real-time, and upon victory Mario is awarded XP". Would replace the comma with a semi-colon and then a comma after "victory".
Done
"In combat, Mario prepares his actions using the stickers". Not keen on the wording. I would change to something like "In combat, Mario's abilities depend on the stickers obtained."
Changed, and put a semicolon in there while I was at it
"Other stickers, called "Thing Stickers", resemble real world objects that can either be used to solve puzzles in the overworld or be used as a powerful attack against enemies". How do they differ to the other stickers (e.g. the Jump sticker) used in combat, or are they treated equally? As this comes straight after the sentence on combat, I would mention their use as powerful attacks first, and then solving puzzles in the overworld after.
Organized
"where he lays down flat and reveals secrets not visible in the standard camera angle". I would remove the bit about the camera as it seems obvious secrets wouldn't be viewed normally in the default FOV. It's a bit vague though, so explain how they are seen.
Fiddled with
I looked at the source (the Gamespot review presumably, which should be linked direct) and they say "Paperizing causes Mario's three-dimensional papercraft surroundings to fall flat like a Polaroid", but you've written it's Mario that's the one falling flat?
Oof, how did that one that slip through?
Seems like a misinterpretation of the source. Would like to say that I myself have only played one of these six games.
"After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing". Who is Huey? Also I would remove the colon and change to "they speak to Huey, who explains that the six Big Paint Stars[...}".
Hm, I think the colon is there by accident. That's odd.
I've changed the "why" to "that" because it's giving the scattered Stars as the reason for the color-draining.
"when he hits something in the overworld, an uncolored object is colored and rewards items such as coins. Since paint is needed to use the hammer, containers of red, yellow, and blue paint can be found by hitting objects with the hammer". As the sequence of events is getting the paint first before colouring objects, I would switch these around and change to something like the following: "hitting certain items in the overworld grants him containers of red, yellow, and blue paint. Paint can then be used to hit other uncolored objects, coloring them and rewarding Mario with items such as coins."
Reorganized
"To engage in combat, Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target". Mentioning Sticker Star before the bit about planning combat reads better in my opinion.
Fiddled with
"Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which they quickly discover to be abandoned. When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly." "Quickly" is redundant. Rephrase "When they enter Peach's Castle" to "At Peach's Castle".
Changed
"Unlike Sticker Star and Color Splash, the game reintroduces some RPG elements. For example, the game reintroduces allies". Repetitive use of "reintroduces".
Oops
"albeit in a stripped-down role". "A simplified role" sounds better.
Simplified
"Additionally, he is given a bag of confetti". Change to "possesess a bag of confetti".
Possessed
"knocks over a book that inside contains the Paper Mario universe". "Inside" is redundant.
Unredundanted
"Paper Jam is more geared toward gameplay than that of the Mario & Luigi series". Elaborate, as this is a bit vague.
Elaborated
"The player simultaneously controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat. Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack." First sentence is too lengthy. Re-phrase the two to something like the following: "The player simultaneously controls Mario and Luigi, who use their usual abilities, and Paper Mario, whose actions are paper-inspired; these include folding into a shuriken in combat, and performing a high-damage attack through stacking multiple copies of himself."
Shortened
There's quite a few repetitive "In the game" before describing the plot of each. Switch up the wording for some.
K
Development and history
"Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro on his own after he was hired". "On his own" is redundant. I would also include the year the company was founded.
Fixed
"Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series". Include "such as titles in the" as the wording seems to conflate "games" and "series".
Fixed
"was the first Mario RPG game". As this is the first mention in a new section, per other examples, use the full term of "role-playing".
Done
"Although Nintendo wanted Square to create another RPG game, Square later signed a deal with Sony Interactive Entertainment to create Final Fantasy VII on the original PlayStation, so Nintendo instead had Intelligent Systems create an RPG for their newest console, the Nintendo 64." Sentence is excessively long. Suggest replacing the comma and "so" with a semi-colon.
Done
"Development on the game began shortly after the release of the console in Japan." Again, a year should be cited of when development started.
Done
"and used a similar graphics style to the previous game." Replace "the previous game" to "its predecessor".
Done
"announced the direct sequel". Change "the" to "a" as we're describing the events as they happened.
Done
"released at varying times". Change to "varying dates" as time could effectively means different hours of a day for example.
Done
"The game is known as Paper Mario RPG in Japan." I would remove this sentence and combine it with the mention of its other title earlier in the paragraph, to read: "titled The Thousand-Year Door worldwide and Paper Mario RPG in Japan."
Done
"By the time the game released, a new series of Mario RPGs". Change to "another series" as some readers might think it's still talking about Paper Mario.
Done
"a new series of Mario RPGs was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series". Move the mention of the series' name Mario & Luigi so it reads as follows: "a new series of Mario RPGs, Mario & Luigi, was created for Nintendo's handheld consoles; developer Alphadream developed the first game in the series[...]"
Done
"releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance". Change "on" to "for".
Done
"Risa Tabata drew inspiration". This first mention of Rita doesn't give her role, but later in the section it does. Include her job title here and subsequently remove it from her second mention.
Done
I've seen examples like this before, but as the placement of the logos are side-by-side shouldn't they should be labelled as "(left)" and "(right)" not "(up)" and "(down)"?
Either that was me copy and pasting the double image template code from another article (probably The Last of Us, or me just forgetting to replace it after I switched the images around. Either way, done.
"being able to switch through 2D and 3D". Change to "alternatively switch from 2D to 3D".
Done
"When he approved". Use Tanabe's name instead of "he" for clarity. Also, "despite the changes, he asked the writers"; is this Kawade or Tanabe?
Done
"Since the game was intended to be played on a GameCube controller, when it was switched over to the Wii it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls." "When it was switched over to the Wii" can easily be taken out to keep the length down.
Done
"As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers did not create any new characters or allies and instead used pre-existing characters already defined in the Mario franchise". Should be "use"; "used" would be referring to the developers' future actions. Also, sentence is lengthy. I would take out mention of allies, as these fall under characters, and re-word the end to "established pre-existing characters".
Done
Replaced the latter use of "characters" with "ones".
"Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door". Change to "Miyamoto also asked that the combat differed from The Thousand-Year Door".
Ctrl C Ctrl V'd
"the series transformed to try and reach a new audience". Replace with "underwent changes in an attempt to reach a new audience" as to me this seems a bit more neutral. "Transformed" in particular seems a bit inflated.
AH! WP:NPOV! BAN HIM BAN HIM BAN HIM
Remove "Since Sticker Star" as the previous sentence it's carrying on from already says "Starting with Sticker Star".
Done
"Nintendo's Intellectual Property team prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise". The paragraph already mentions Miyamoto's same request previously so the two sentences should be condensed and either come straight after the other or merged together.
Done
"and they naturally saw Paper Mario". Remove "they naturally" as redundant.
Done
"Every game in the series from Color Splash onward has a white paper outline around Mario; the developers of Paper Jam needed to differentiate the characters from the separate series." Others might disagree, but to me this reads better with a comma and "as" in place of the semi-colon.
"followed by two remakes of old games". Are these older Mario & Luigi installments (if so mention this) or other unrelated games?
Done
"because the developers found the motion controls fun to use". To me "as" sounds better than "because".
Done
"Following which, the game received negative reception". Having "Following which" to open a sentence seems gramatically incorrect to me. Using "Following this" can work.
I don't understand why my mind defaults to using the word "which" so often.
Panini! Do you agree with changing it as it's been left? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've changed it to your suggestion. Panini!🥪 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Risa Tabata further noted". "Further" is an additive term that should only be used when absolutely necessary. It can be removed in this context.
Done
"the Paper Mario series would rather focus on non-RPG elements". Wording makes it seem the series is making its own conscientious decision here, not the developers. Change to "would focus more on".
Done
"in early September, but was instead announced in mid-May". Give both years here.
Done
"Despite the return of some iconic characters from the series, critics were still disappointed in their lack of functionality". Can you elaborate further? Is this referring to their roles in the plot?
Elaborated
"The game also featured large overworlds". If they still do, change tense to "features".
Sometimes I have difficulty with determining what type of tense to use. Let me do that L trick with my hands real quick.
"Tanabe reaffirmed that he does pay attention to the general criticism, but still makes sure that he does not ignore "the casual players" and new fans of the series". Change to "Tanabe reaffirmed that while he does make note of general criticisms, he makes sure not to ignore "casual players" and new fans of the series."
Done
The last paragraph needs a few changes.
Let me at em'
"He stated how he could not satisfy every fan amidst the core veteran fans and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts,". There should be a semi-colon in place of the first comma.
Semicoloned
Change correct tense of "he instead attempts" to "attempted", and "how the game's writing is kept surreal" to "was".
Past-tensed
Replace "which is why" with "hence why".
Henced
"He stated how he could not [...] He also explained how the game's writing". Replace these examples of "he" with "Tanabe" as there's too many in the paragraph.
Tanabe'd
The game's writing is mentioned as being kept "surreal". Can you elaborate further?
Elaborated
Panini! You've included "and mixed", but I'm still not sure what this is indicating? Sorry. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"understood by other ages and nations". I would change "nations" to something like "cultures" or "ethnicities", something that's more of a demonination like age is.
Cultured
"He has also since kept away from a complicated plot due to how it "led the game away from the Mario universe"; he instead created a story where different locales would be tied to specific memorable events". To further limit the use of "he", for this example replace the semi-colon and "he" with a comma and a "and". Also, I read the related portion in the source and I couldn't see where he mentioned anything about using locales for memorable experiences?
Yeah, cited the wrong source there it seems. I've added one in there that covers the concept.
Reception and legacy
"Paper Mario received critical acclaim in 2000." This is the only game in this section that mentions the release year so I would remove it if it's not being used for the others.
Changed
"and elements from the Mario franchise". Change to "existing elements".
Done
"Additionally, it was praised for its writing and characters". Re-phrase to "Its writing and characters received additional praise".
Dine
"listed the game among one of the best games". Change the first use of "the game" to "it" to avoid repetition.
Done
"in Nintendo Power's "Top 200 Games", released in 2006". The comma and "released in" can be removed.
Done
"The Thousand-Year Door is considered the best game in the series according to fans and critics". Owing to how this is sourced, and to be more neutral and treating it less like a factual statement, I would suggest re-phrasing to something like "The Thousand-Year Door is often ranked as one of the best games in the series."
Done
"with comments on the story being whimsical in tone". Change to "with the story being considered whimsical in tone."
Done
"Despite changing the RPG style, Super Paper Mario was still met with generally positive reviews. The concept of changing dimensions received positive reception". Change "positive reception" to "praise" to switch up the wording a bit as "positive reviews" is written in the previous sentence. Also change "from" to "for".
Done
"Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated, but most reviewers praised". Remove "reviewers" as repeated twice in sentence.
Whoops
"Sticker Star received more criticism than the prior games. Although critics enjoyed the graphics, worldbuilding, and characters, the game's reception was mainly mixed". "Predecessors" sounds better in my opinion than "prior games". The game's reception is highlighted twice here; I would replace the "more criticism" bit at the beginning with it receiving "a more mixed reception".
Done
"with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic". Remove "being" and replace "center" with "central".
Done
"Although some critics praised". Too similar to the opening of the prior sentence. Suggest varying wording to "While some praised".
Done
"Reviewers called the Thing Stickers one of the game's biggest weaknesses". Additional mention of "critics"/"reviewers"; change to "the Thing Stickers were called one of the game's biggest weaknesses".
Wow, looks like I used those terms a lot by accident, huh? Done
"Upon reveal, fans criticized Color Splash." Include "Upon it's reveal".
Its'd
"continuing the trend of action-adventure games". Change to "action-adventure installments" to better specify this is referring to the series.
Done
"and a Change.org petition was created calling for the game's cancellation." Change "the game's" to "it's" as the beginning of the next sentence repeats the use of "the game".
Done
"but received generally positive reviews after release". Change to "upon release" to indicate there was no changes of opinion in the time after it came out.
Done
"Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins". Change "realized" to "noted" as this implies his knowledge of the mechanic changed throughout playing, which the review doesn't mention.
Done
"as it re-added beloved RPG elements". Are the RPG elements beloved as a whole, or just certain examples? Regardless however, "beloved" seems a but too glorified; I would replace with "favored" or maybe even "cherished" at a push.
Yeah, it was a skeptical word that Whillbb when they were copyediting. Done
"The three games since Sticker Star were greatly criticized for the removal of elements that made the games RPGs. The games were often criticized for the removal of an XP system". Second sentence opening is repetitive of the first. Change the former to "These included the removal of an XP system[...]".
Done
Side-note: I noticed this whilst looking through Paper Mario: The Origami King, but there seems to be a discrepancy in that The Origami King says the game was criticized for dropping its staple RPG-elements, whilst (unless I'm misinterpreting the wording) Paper Mario says The Origami King was praised for re-adding "beloved" RPG elements. Which is correct?
Elaborated a little further.
Sales
"and sold over 1.3 million copies since 2007 and is the thirteenth best-selling game on the Nintendo GameCube." Split this into a seperate sentence for the GameCube prose to keep the length down.
Done
"the game had sold about 2.3 million units worldwide". Change "about" to "around".
Done
"As of 2019, the game has sold". Change tense to "had" if we're talking about a previous year. This goes for the other mentions of "the game has" for other years.
Done
"Sticker Star had sold about 400,000 copies". Again, change to "around", and remove unnecessary "had".
Done
"the game has made close to 2.5 million sales". Too definitive; if the benchmark wasn't reached, put "had reached almost".
Done
"Although the number of sales of Color Splash are unknown, Japan sales". Include "worldwide" before "sales".
Done
"and the series' best launch sales". Remove "sales"; "launch" works on its own just as well.
Done
In other media
"The most prominent of which is the "Paper Mario" stage". Remove unnecessary "of which".
Done
The use of "also" is almost always unnecessary in prose; see Tony1's guide. There are quite a few examples throughout the article.
Removed a lot of its instances
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2021 [24].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring back here this women's football match article, after a few reviewers were so kind to do a Peer Review. I believe it is in line with the football articles that recently got promoted to FA (1987 FA Cup Final, 2019 FA Cup Final), at least in terms of level of understanding to a non-expert. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported at the previous nomination. I already left comments that were addressed there. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more tweaks:

Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but were unsuccessful ===>>> Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but neither led to a goal. (The kicks themselves were not unsuccessful.)
Arsenal had made thirty-four shots <<<=== I think just "Arsenal had thirty-four shots" or "Arsenal had taken thirty-four shots"?
South-Korean <<<=== there shouldn't be a dash
allowing Manchester City to take the lead ===>>> allowing Manchester City to take the top position. ("the lead" sounds more like the lead in a game)
They achieved a further win ===>>> They achieved a second win

That's it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Sportsfan77777, for taking time again to go over the article. Much appreciated. I have made the improvements you suggested. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hmlarson (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hmlarson for your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I commented on the peer review. Below are some additional comments based on a prose review. Please note: I am a non-expert.

  • "Manager Joe Montemurro used his new signings and brought on Jordan Nobbs" I don't know what the first part of the sentence is trying to tell me.
I removed the "used his new signings and" bit, as indeed it does not warrant a mention that these new signings were actually used.
  • "Prior to round eight" Round eight of what?
I changed it so that the opening sentence of this paragraph says that round 1 of the season took place in Sep. That should make the meaning of round eight obvious.
  • "surpassing Liverpool's 9–0 defeat of" Perhaps change to "surpassing Liverpool's 9-0 victory over" I think "defeat of" is a little confusing.
Done
  • "After 23 February, no more of the 2019–20 season's matches were played because of the COVID-19 pandemic." "no more" sounds weird here. What about "Matches for the 2019-20 season stopped after 23 February because of the COVID-19 pandemic." Also, you use the same two citations for the next sentence, so I think you can remove the citations at the end of this one.
Done
  • "Because Arsenal did not finish in the top two," Change to "Since Arsenal did not"
Done

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, for taking the time again to look at the article. Much appreciated. I hope I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead, even if repeated later
Done
  • "The result put Arsenal top of the league on goal difference" - don't see this specific claim in the text
It summarises the first 3 sentences of the Aftermath section
Is the table position based solely on goal difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, I now see what you mean. No, it is based on points first, then goal difference. I removed the detail about goal difference from the lead, and just stick to the main point: The result put Arsenal top of the league.
  • FN22: why italicize BBC Sport here but not in other refs?
Good catch. All consistent now.
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
There is no retrieval date when there is an archive date. I had missed a few and have just cleaned this up to be consistent.
This still isn't consistent - for example FN16 has both. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I have them all now. I added a bunch of archive links as well.
  • FN24 is missing author
Done
  • FN45: work title should be italicized. Ditto FN48, check for others
Done. All newspapers now in italics.
This applies to all work titles, not just newspapers - eg Kicker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thx!
Fixed. Good catch. Thanks very much for checking, Nikkimaria. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed them all now. Thx. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, is this GTG? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2021 (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) 22 May 2021 [25].

Patrick Francis Healy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

[edit]

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

  • I've haven't researched the topic extensively, but I'm skeptical about this article's comprehensiveness. While other sources do get cited a few time each, most of this article is cited to Curran 1993 when there is much more literature to represent on this topic, including academic analysis. I find that this article is mostly just a bio of his life without opinions or analysis from outside sources about the impact of his work and why he is significant.
    • I have done a fair bit of research on Healy and have to disagree regarding comprehensiveness. The Curran book is cited only in the Georgetown presidency section, which makes sense because the Curran book is a detailed history of the history of Georgetown and therefore discusses Healy's presidency in detail. I have not come across any significant details of Healy's life that are absent from the article. I agree this article is just a biography of Healy; I don't claim otherwise. I'm not sure I know what other analysis of Healy you are referring to. All the meaningful analysis of his life that I've come across (primarily historiography of his race) is mentioned in this article. They all state approximately historiography, so citing to one reliable one is generally, I think, as good as citing to them all. Ergo Sum 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I understand. I'll admit my judgement was based on the amount of citations and what citations were cited. as well as the amount of results in the Google scholar search. If I was a bit ignorant in my response, my apologies. I would still recommended reading the literature in the search I linked to see if there's anything else to include.
  • For Ref 1, it is not harv citation style to use the title of the article in the ref when there isn't an author. You have to use the work or publisher.
  • Watch out for non-neutral-point-of-view language. For example, "who was an important president of Georgetown University," and "Of them all, Patrick Healy most readily passed as White.[8] Indeed, his passport described his complexion as "light," suggesting he passed as a light-skinned White man, rather than a light-skinned Black man". " Healy experienced poor health, likely suffering from untreated epilepsy." likely to which researchers?
    • Respectfully, each of these is NPOV. These are all factual statements. None of them strike me as particularly controversial statements and they are all supported by reliable sources. Ergo Sum 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll clarify. Words and phrases like "important," "suggesting he passed" and "likely suffering" seem subjective. Whether person's race "passes" to another person seems to depend on someone's point of view. "Likely" indicates it's not definitely known, so personal interpretation is used to figure out probable solutions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand where you're coming from. These are all things that can be debated because they are essentially one source's interpretation of the world. For example, how important a president he was can be debated. Yet, such claims can't automatically excluded. In articles, I think it's worth qualifying a claim as only "according to X" if there is actually scholarly debate on the subject, i.e. if experts disagree. Here, however, there are reliable sources that make the claims, the claims seem prima facie reasonable to me, and I have not seen any experts reject the claims or arrive at contrary conclusions. E.g. as far as I can make out, there's pretty unanimous consensus among historians that Healy passed as White; i.e. consensus that the world at that time viewed him as White, not that historians agree that he was as a matter of fact White. Ergo Sum 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are many terms in the body linked on their first mention but not Jesuit?
  • Para 2 of "Presidency" feels WP:EDITORIAL and non-encyclopedic in tone in places, and is also fluffy
    • I've rephrased some of the sentences that might be a bit editorialized. I'm trying to strike a balance between describing the grandiose plan that Healy/the bishops set out without endorsing this vision in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think of the new phrasing? Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " until both of their deaths in 1850" --> "until both died in 1850"
  • " Michael Healy was prevented by Georgia law" which law?
  • Awkward sentences: "Despite his appearance and self-identity, speculation as to his race remained with him."
  • "In 1867, he professed his final vows" This sentence is too vague and is abrupt in the paragraph that it's in.
    • You'll have to help me out with the vagueness. I've linked "final vows," if that helps. Ergo Sum 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that helps. Plus previous sections establish he did first vows for a religious institution, so that helps too.
  • If Healy was considered the "second founder" of Georgetown, who was the first?
  • I noticed instances where full-sentence clauses are incorrectly separated by commas. For example: "As interracial marriage was prohibited by Georgia's anti-miscegenation law, Michael formed a common-law marriage with the 16-year-old Eliza in 1829" and "this proved less of a concern than the fact that because Healy's parents were never legally married in the eyes of the church, he was born out of wedlock"
    • These two sentences are grammatically correct. The commas offset dependent conditional clauses. I suppose they could be broken up into more than one sentence, but I'm generally in favor of keeping a sentence together if it is all concerned with one idea. Ergo Sum 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsection about Curricular reform does not introduce the reader properly to it. It starts with "Healy continued the reform of the curriculum he began as prefect." When did he begin reforming? Why does it start abruptly in the middle of curriculum reformation?
    • That section is titled Curricular reform, so I thought it would make sense to start with a discussion of curricular reform. The reform as prefect I was referring back to was his reorganization of classes. Ergo Sum 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Healy determined that Georgetown's most pressing need was to expand its physical facilities." Another not-so-good introduction to a paragraph. When and for what reasons did he determine this?

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro I don't mean to pester. Just want to see if you've gotten a chance to give this a second look. Ergo Sum 00:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_solitaire.jpeg: the source provided is a "used by permission" note. Is this actually used by permission, or PD as claimed by the tags? If the latter, what was the first publication?
    • I've updated the tags and description. I'm not able to find it being published before 2003. I've left the bit about permission from Sweet because I have no way of confirming that and his account has not been active in 15 years. It may very well be true and possibly permission was given before OTRS was a thing (not sure when that was set up). Ergo Sum 01:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_portrait.jpg: what steps have been taken to investigate publication history? Ditto File:Patrick_Francis_Healy.jpg
  • File:Healy_Hall_early_rendering.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]
  • "came to own" → "owned"
  • "who Michael Healy had purchased" -- why is this here? Is it self-evident if she was his "slave" that he "purchased" her. I also do not see it in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
  • "common-law marriage" -- not in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
  • "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy" -- strange, can we use the word "doctorate"
    • It does strike my ear as a bit odd, but I think it's a fairly important point. There are non-PhD doctorates and even non-PhD doctorates in philosophy, such as ScD, DLitt, applied doctorates, and who knows how many new non-PhD degrees that are called doctorates. Plus, there is a lot of variance of names for doctorates around the world and by time period. The source refers only to the PhD, so while most likely that he also received the first doctorate at all, it is not certain and cannot be extrapolated. Ergo Sum 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "at the time in that neither" -- "At the time" may work better as the very beginning of the sentence.
  • "ever married anyone else, and after marriage" -- the comma here belongs after "and" ... actually the phrase "after marriage" is unnecessary since we already said three times in that paragraph that they were married. The phrase "the rest of their lives" is enough to convey the meaning.
  • "after graduating, Healy entered ..." -- Probably better to start a new sentence with this phrase and combine with the next sentence about the novitiate.
  • "because Healy's parents..." -- would need a comma before this phrase. another option is to put a en/emdash before it and another en/emdash instead of the comma after "law of the church".
  • "While under canon law, this required that Healy obtain a dispensation to join the order, none was ever sought and he was admitted without issue."
-- Without a coordinating conjunction, this is a run-on sentence. This should be two sentences or add "but" or "however" etc. before "none was ever sought...".
  • "In 1858, Healy went to Georgetown ..." -- This should be part of the next paragraph, or merge the two paragraphs
  • Library of Congress (LOC) says "study philosophy and theology". You say "taught". Why?
  • Why do we believe LOC that he went to Rome and not believe UCLA that he went to "Saint-Sulpice Seminary in Paris, France"?
    • I overlooked the mention of the Sulpician seminary. It was customary for American Jesuits at this time to send a promising student to one of the Roman universities, so it must be that he went to Rome first and then to Paris. I've clarified this in the text. Ergo Sum 04:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "philosophy, and decided" -- this comma seems unnecessary

[Apologies for the sporadic pace. I have little free time these days.] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Patrickneil

[edit]
  • Support with some comments:
    • In the middle paragraph of the lead, I think we loose who "he" is in "Healy's father sent him north... and he continued...", maybe that is a spot for the passive voice, i.e. "Healy was sent north by his father and later continued..." in order to keep Healy as the sentence subject, rather than Healy's father. Either that or something like "Healy's father sent Patrick north" would help.
    • The next sentence starts "He then returned to Georgetown..." but we haven't established that Healy had been to Georgetown previously. Did we loose a sentence about him teaching there? Maybe "returned to America" or "to Washington, D.C."? Or "He taught at schools in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, including Georgetown, where was was named chair of philosophy in 1866."?
    • "Healy became the president" could afford a better verb, like "Healy was elected" or "selected". Maybe "promoted" would reference his trajectory through chair, prefect, and vice rector?
    • There's a couple times were the article uses the term "the North" where it could be more specific, like "New York and New England".
      • I'm only seeing three instances of it, and each one does refer broadly to the north such that narrowing it would be less accurate. Ergo Sum 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the meaning, I just think there's most specific options, "northern states without slavery", for example. It's just imprecise, like Maryland and Delaware were "northern" but still had slavery then. I guess I also find it a bit strange there is zero mention of the Civil War on the article. Perhaps at the start of the Georgetown University section we could say "In 1866... at Georgetown University, whose student body had been devastated by the effects of the American Civil War" or mention it was happening while Healy was at Louvain, like "On July 26, 1865, a month after the Civil War ended in America, Healy received..."?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that does seem to be a glaring omission. I've added a mention of the Civil War at the start of the Georgetown section. The trouble with saying something like the "slavery-free North" is that though less common than in the South, there was slavery in the North too. Ergo Sum 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, that's what I'm saying. Healy wasn't just sent to "the North" but to specific "northern states where slavery had been abolished or never allowed." I know this is obvious to you and me, but I think we want to keep it clear to the reader that the absence of slavery is what differentiates the states, either by naming them or by describing them as such.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps you could suggest the precise wording? My logic is that it starts out with the North and then proceeds to specify exactly where in the north: New York and then Massachusetts. That just reads naturally to me. Ergo Sum 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the eyes of the church" might be a common colloquial, but there could be a more encyclopedic phrase, "under church rules" or just "never married in a church".
    • You probably know this better than me, but when referring to the school in 1850 or 1858, is "Georgetown College" or "Georgetown University" better? Seeing as it's him who worked to make it a university, and "University" doesn't get added to the official name till a good bit later, is using "University" a convenience for readers, or would he have actually called it "Georgetown University"? I hate to add more to the "Notes" section at the bottom, but maybe it could be clarified that way.
      • This is a sticky issue. The point at which it switched from Georgetown College to Georgetown University is somewhat up for debate. I've seen some sources that put it as early as 1815 (the year the college was chartered). Legally speaking, there was no such institution known as "Georgetown University" until 1966, and indeed some documents, especially legal ones, routinely refer to it as Georgetown College up until then. However, many sources start using university much earlier. The mid to late 19th century is when it first enters common circulation. So, for purposes of clarity, I've just made all references to "Georgetown University." Ergo Sum 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then maybe we can add a modifier in the second paragraph of the Presidency section where the article describes Healy's goal of transforming Georgetown into a "university". Perhaps "into a modern university", or a "cohesive university", or a "liberal arts university"? Like Healy can't be transforming it into a university if we've already called it that.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the 1960s and 1970s" might be better specified as "by 1973".
      • I'm not sure when in the 60s thee university began identifying Healy as black, and the gap between (potentially) 1960 and 1973 is pretty big. I think a reader might be better off knowing that sometime in the 60s is when it first started. Ergo Sum 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of the facts in the first paragraph of "Georgetown University" might be out of chronology, unless it's intentionally summarizing the subsections or something. "On May 23, 1873, he also became the vice rector of the university" for example seems to be duplicated as the first sentence of the Presidency section. I assume "vice rector" and "acting rector" mean the same thing, but maybe the article should pick one.
    • The article first mentions that he "established an alumni society" before he was president, while Early's health "began to fail" (maybe date that to 1872?), but then eleven paragraphs later says "in 1880, Healy re-established Georgetown's alumni association". Same with creating the Merrick Debate Medal and then six paragraphs later saying the Merrick Debate was established in 1875.
      • I went back and took a look at the sources. I had gotten confused on the timeline because one source said he did these things as prefect while another said he did them as president. I then realized that there was a period of time where he was both prefect and president, so I've rearranged the text accordingly. Ergo Sum 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, the O'Connor source says ending the reading in the refectory occurred "before the Christmas holidays in the first year of his rectorship", i.e. December 1873, so shouldn't that go after Early dies in May 1873?
    • The paragraph about Healy's poor heath, right now at the bottom of the "Presidency" section, might better start the "Later years" section to keep chronology. Or perhaps the first sentence, "Throughout his presidency Healy experienced poor health", could be tacked into the bit about him sailing to San Francisco, where his health is also mentioned.
  • Keep up the great work!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Modussiccandi

[edit]

Early life

  • "one of whom was Patrick's mother, Mary Eliza Smith, who Michael Healy had purchased" - would "whom Michael Healy had purchased" not be preferable?
  • "while two of his brothers would also become priests" - I find the "also" superfluous. At this point, it hasn't been stated in the body that Healey would become a priest. As it is, "also" could be construed as referring to the sisters. Anyway, I think it can be left out.

Education

  • "... and at the time of his death in August 1850, he also intended to join them" - again, I think the "also" is not needed.
  • Image caption "Portrait of Healy seated" - can anything more be said about the image? The description says it's from 1877. Now, I don't know if this is reliable but it could be added for context. I always think it's nice to be able to gauge what part of a person's life a photo belongs to.

Racial identity

  • "Under the one-drop rule" - the term is linked but I think some sort of explanation in the article would help. Maybe a footnote or a relative clause could do the trick. I'm quite unfamiliar with the topic of racial legislation, so do tell me if I'm underestimating the general American reader.
  • "there was a resurgent interest in his history" - is this his history as in "familial (i.e. genetic) history" or his biography in general?

Georgetown University

  • "The following year, he became the prefect of schools" - this statement might need more context. The link to "prefect" doesn't entirely explain what this office was. You don't need to add much here; just a brief explanation would do.
    • With many of the other Georgetown presidents, I've simply left it as prefect with a link because I haven't been able to pin down exactly what the job of the prefect was. It seems that it was a position unique to Jesuit universities in the United States during this time period and had a fair bit of variation depending on who held the office. So, sadly, I can't give a good explanation. Ergo Sum 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency

  • "In a very unusual arrangement, he continued to hold the role of prefect until 1879, simultaneously with the office of president" - the source calls the arrangement "a notable fact". I think "very unusual" is adding too much to what the source intends to say.
  • "a great Catholic university in the United States" - I noticed that the source presents the "great" part as a quotation. You could consider reflecting this in the article.
    • I had considered that initially. My worry was that putting great in quotes makes it seem like it raises issues of MOS:DOUBT. I agree that leaving it without quotes is cause of a double-take, but having a ref to turn to provides some safeguard. Ergo Sum 22:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The demographics of the student body underwent change during Healy's tenure" - perhaps just "changed"?
    • As a general matter, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary turns of phrase, but here I think it does add a little something. Suggests a gradual transition as opposed to immediate. Ergo Sum 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption "Line drawing of Healy" - again, it might be possible to find a bit more context for the caption
  • "An entrance exam was given for the first time to applicants" - consider something like "For the first time, applicants were required to sit an entrance exam".
  • "He and Keller" - why not "they"?

Later years

  • "Returning to Georgetown in February 1882" - If the health crisis happened after he returned to Georgetown, I would write "having returned".

An interesting and well-built article on what seems to be an important person in the history of American higher education whom I had never heard of before. I'm happy to support in principle. Have a look at my (nitpicky) comments, Ergo Sum, and let me know if I'm way off on something. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will reply shortly. Ergo Sum 13:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough feedback, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. Don't worry about the image captions. I've been affected by this myself numerous times. I'm quite happy with the explanation of the one-drop rule, too. I will switch to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Citations:

Sources:

Further reading:

Reviewed as of this version. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, Usernameunique. Ergo Sum 20:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks about ready to close but will await Usernameunique's response re. the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (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) 22 May 2021 [26].

Tecumseh

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 14 years since I've submitted a Featured Article candidate, but winter and COVID conspired to bring me back. This article is, I believe, an important one. Two centuries after Tecumseh's death, he is still widely admired and studied, and places continue to honor him with new memorials. The internet is filled with old myths about Tecumseh, long since corrected in scholarly sources. This article can now serve as a source of reliable information that's hard to find online. Thank you for your time and attention. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • Citations: Several page ranges have "p." when they should have 'pp.'.
  • Sources: Not all books have publisher locations.
  • Infobox: All entries should start with an uppercase letter.
  • There are a lot of duplicate Wikilinks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, these have been fixed, thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 06:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we've been having issues with a lot of stuff being transcluded onto individual FAC pages and then causing issues where not all of the FAC page will show, I'll be leaving my comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been posted. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow See talk page

  • Done! Thank you so much for this review. I've made adjustments to address these issues. I've added the IPA pronunciation for "Tecumtha" in the body of the article; this pronunciation may be far too uncommon now for the lede, perhaps. Kevin1776 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good, Support on prose. I've moved my comments to the talk page as there is an issue with the length of the FAC listings page - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology of Shawnee name

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over a month and has only picked up one general support. Unless there is considerably more indication that a consensus to promote is starting to form over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I will look in, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought and hoped that you might. Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This corroborates tekomthé as the best approximation.[28] Also it seems a source that could be incorporated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not sure if a newspaper column is the type of source we want to cite, but fortunately the pronunciation it gives (Tecumthé) is already cited in our article. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Tecumthé" is a problematic spelling, I think it should be complemented with a phonetic representation as [tekom'θe]. C is a ambiguous consonant with no geneally agreed upon pronunciation, and the vowel u is wrong since there is no u sound in Shawnee either. So in phonetic rendering it must be tekomthé (In english the u is often used to represent short o). I also think the Shawnee name should appear in the definition sentence - since this must be considered his real name. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your knowledge on the ipa rendering, I just don't know how to cite it without straying into original research. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use this source (already cited in the article) and have Maunus render the IPA, or does the IPA need a source? Victoria (tk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do not require sources for IPA renderings, only for the pronunciations that they render, requiring for the transcription itself would leave most articles without them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Maunus

[edit]
  • I would encourage that in articles about topics related to indigenous peoples, one make an effort to include the voices and perspectives of the relevant communities, even if that sometimes means citing sources that are not academically published. Sticking strictly to established ideas of "reliable sources" unfortunately sometimes means, excluding those who have the most intiomate knowledge because they don't have access to academic venus of publication. I would certainly try to find ways to include contemporary Shawnee views of Tecumseh in the article. The legacy section for example does not say anything about how Shawnee people today see him, or how theyv have been affected by his actions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article by the current chief of the Shawnee Tribe, Ben Barnes, is cited in the article, but I agree more on his legacy among Shawnees today would be good. Your suggestion about altering the definition of "reliable sources" is a Wikipedia policy decision beyond the scope of what we can do here, I believe. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about altering the definition in policy, but about how that definition can be applied in articles about different topics. There is nothing in policy that says a testimony in Indian Country Today is not a reliable source per definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source of Shawnee views of Tecumseh, might be this book. Especially the first chapter after the introduction deals with the conflict internally in the Shawnee tribe around time of Tecumseh's war- focusing on two Shawnee leaders who fought on the American side against Tecumseh - Captain Lewis and Black Hoof.
    • That book is cited in the article. There's not a lot about Tecumseh in that book, since it focuses on Shawnees who did not follow his path. BTW I've cited that chapter you mention extensively in my draft article on Captain Lewis here. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here is an eye witness account of Tecumseh's death[29].
Only that it was recently made available on that website. If there is a lot of discussion about the sources and circumstances regarding his death, then I think the article should reflect that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And an article about the debastes about who killed him: Simmons, D. A. (2012). " Thus Fell Tecumseh": The 1813 Struggle for the Northwest Territory, and the Mystery Surrounding Who Killed Tecumseh, Revealed through the Personal Accounts of the Participants by Frank E. Kuron. Michigan Historical Review, 38(1), 161-162.
  • And here is a book that can be used to flesh out the account of the events at Vincennes[30].
  • And here is an article that tells of how Tecumseh has been used differently by Indigenous and non-indigenous canadians in telling their relations with the British Empire.Brownlie, J. (2017). " Our fathers fought for the British": Racial Discourses and Indigenous Allies in Upper Canada. Histoire sociale/Social history, 50(102), 259-284.
  • Here is another by Brownlie on Tecumseh's legacy and commemorations:Brownlie, Robin Jarvis. "COMMEMORATING TECUMSEH." Canadian Issues/Thèmes Canadiens (2012)
  • And Gordon Sayre has a chapter on Tecumseh in his "The Indian Chief as Tragic Hero: Native Resistance and the Literatures of America, from Moctezuma to Tecumseh. Sayre mentions that in the biography of Benjamin Drake there are some materials from an account by Stephen Ruddell, who lived as a prisoner with the Shawnee and knew Tecumseh as he was growing up - he mentions that he disliked the practice of torturing prisoners. This might be something to include. ·maunus · .snunɐɯ· 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think the article might want to mention Ruddell as a source of information about Tecumseh then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruddell was just one of many informants. Others include Anthony Shane, John Johnston, John Richardson, and a host of others. We can't mention them all. Ruddell and a couple others will likely be mentioned in the spin-off article Family of Tecumseh at some point, but I don't think we need to name-check him here. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article on the New Madrid earthquake's that discusses how they aided him n securing support in Alabama - apparently suggesting he might have known about the area's history of earthquake (judging from the abstract). Hough, Susan Elizabeth, and Roger G. Bilham. "Tecumseh’s Legacy: The Enduring Enigma of the New Madrid Earthquakes." In After the Earth Quakes. Oxford University Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Montanabw that it would be beneficial to try to give a better idea of what SHawnee politics was like, than one gets by just saying he was a "chief" - I think footnote 4 should be in the actual text, perhaps with some citations. Also the fact that a "chief" had no coecive power and dependened entirely on whether people chose to follow their lead, would perhaps be relevant to emphasize a bit more even. Lakomäki describes this for war leaders (he does not say war "chief" does he?), and how you can demand being recognized as war leader but that doesn't mean anyone will actually consider you that. The Shawnee terms for peace/clan leader and war leader are Hokima and 'Neenawtooma respectively, which should probably also be in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Montanabw

[edit]
  • I’ll leave a notice at WP Indigenous people of NA.
  • But as it sits, the first thing that leapt out at me was overuse of the word “chief.” It pops up 21times. That’s the white man’s word and should be minimized in its use (i.e. mostly if used direct quotes from historic documents, etc.). The exception is if the nation themselves has officially adopted the term “chief” as a formal title or honorific. This needs to be examined. Usually the word “leader” is a better word, and particularly watch out for overuse of “chief” with other people mentioned in passing.
  • I wouldn’t fret too much on the pronunciation issue, I’d use both the standard way the name is spelled and pronounced by mainstream historians with IPA and ALSO put in the traditional transliteration with as close as possible sourced actual pronunciation of how he may have said his own name, i.e. “Tecumseh (IPA), in Shawnee Tekomthé (pronunciation) [citation]...”
  • I share the perspective of Maunus that relying too much on academic sources, particularly older ones, is fraught. Absent tribal views, too much academic content is prone to inaccurately portray native perspective and promote colonialism. Seeking content from present-day official sources from the Shawnee tribes, tribal colleges, and so on is wise.

Ping me at my talkpage if you want me to take another run. I’m not on WP a ton, but I’ve got my settings so TP messages shoot me an email Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Ben "that's Chief to you" Barnes, current chief of the Shawnee Tribe (who's cited in the article), and Glenna Wallace, current chief of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe (author of "Chiefs of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe") might be surprised to learn from Wikipedia that they have "white man's" titles. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass

[edit]

Spot checks not done. Version reviewed

  • After reviewing the authors and publishers, I believe these are high-quality sources.
  • The hyphens in the ISBNs on the listed sources are formatted differently: sometimes there are hyphens, sometimes only one hyphen, sometimes many. Please standardize.
  • The Cheeseekau's war chief status and year of his death are mentioned in the lede but not in the body.
  • "Shawnee Chief Blue Jacket's armed struggle against further American encroachment" is in the lede. While the battle and defeat are mentioned in the body, Blue Jacket's leadership/ownership of the conflict is not.
  • Infobox says he was born in Chillicothe, but the article says it was near Chillicothe.
  • Sugden (1986) has a JSTOR link. Since other JSTOR journal articles have a link in the title, I suggest linking this, too.
  • Why are alternate editions of Sugden (1997) and Sugden (1986) provided? This is not done with other sources.
  • Yagelski is available on JSTOR here: [31] I suggest adding it to the reference.

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal, I'll get to these and other comments this weekend. Thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments. I believe they have all (finally) been addressed. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I will pass this source review. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [32].

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with One of the Boys (1989 TV series), which I have created and expanded to hopefully becoming a featured article. It is currently a GA and underwent a beneficial peer review by Aoba47. I welcome any comments and look forward to addressing them. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • File:One of the Boys 1989 title card.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Given how only one season aired, it wouldn't hurt to include the overall episode count in the lead. I would also expand that to include more production details.
    • Edited.
  • "they wed by the fifth episode"..... in the fifth episode
    • Amended.
  • Is "unsuccessful" pertaining to critical reception, viewership ratings, or both for I Married Dora?
    • Specified with additional Los Angeles Times reference.
  • "better" from "could receive better movie roles afterward" is POV
    • Changed to "thought she could receive better movie roles afterward".
  • When did filming conclude?
    • I was unable to find a source.
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, I'd try to find a ref to back up the general assessment of "Critics deemed the show unremarkable". Don't make presumptions solely based on reviews already included within Wikipedia pages.
    • I could not find any overall assessments or retrospective comments.
  • Is five reviews all you can find?
    • That's pretty much all there is on Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive, ProQuest, Gale, and Google News Archive. I believe the fact there was no preview shown to television critics before the premiere has something to do with such little reviews. As you can see from Live-In or even The Masked Singer (American TV series), I do not hesitate to add reviews when they are available.

While this is rather short compared to many other TV show pages (which I suspect is at least partially because it only lasted for six episodes), it mostly seems comprehensive. Just get through these as well as Buidhe's concern on a reference error. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now offer my support, and the image review passes as well. Very good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SNUGGUMS: I have added an additional image to the article and would like to inform you as you previously conducted an image review. Heartfox (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the FUR for File:One of the Boys 1989 cast.png is A-OK. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

[edit]

I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.--NØ 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I am not that familiar with these type of articles, so I randomly read the FAs Kampung Boy (TV series) and House (TV series) as examples. I may use them as a reference for the review.
  • I don't think just saying it is an "American sitcom" gets enough information across in the opening sentence. Is it possible to use a descriptive word between them, like "American romance sitcom" or something else?
    • Genres require sources and to my knowledge there were none that specified it further.
  • Is there a reason the character and actress have similar names?
    • There were no sources that acknowledged the similarity of their names.
  • "who gets hired to work in the office of a small construction company" -- Shouldn't this be active voice? "who begins working in the office of a small construction company"
    • Changed.
  • "quickly marries its widowed owner" -- Not sure "quickly" does much to enhance the reader's understanding here.
    • Removed.
  • "Numerous production companies oversaw filming" -- If there's just five, can't they be named?
    • Five production companies is a massive number for any TV show, particularly one that lasted six episodes. Are you sure it wouldn't be excessive to list all of them for a one-paragraph lead? I did change "numerous" to "five", though.
  • The lead mentions what the reviews referred to, but does not say whether they were favorable or negative.
    • There were no retrospective/all-encompassing sources that described the reviews either way.
  • I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead section. The sentence "It was one of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s." is the best and most attention-grabbing part. Can that be moved up and made the second sentence?
    • Done.
  • "Her best friend Bernice DeSalvo (Amy Aquino) works as a waitress" -- Does she only work as a waitress at Mike and Maria's wedding or all the time? This sentence appears kind of abruptly.
    • I tried reorganizing the paragraph but I really don't know where else to put it to be honest, so I reformatted the section it into a list which more closely aligns with MOS:TVCAST idk. This is back in paragraph form, with the sentence written differently.
  • There's another sentence that mentions things happening "quickly", but isn't this automatically implied since the series had just six episodes?
    • Removed.
  • Shouldn't the article structure be Background - Production - Premise instead of what it is now? I could be wrong, since I am not familiar with writing these type of articles!
    • It's supposed to be plot first but you're not supposed to have a plot section if there are episode summaries, so you're supposed to move the episode table first, but you can't because of the infobox, so cast and characters is next... the MOS a mess TBH but other TV FA's don't follow MOS:TV structure exactly (e.g., Abby, which is what I based this article on originally); every article is different. If you think it flows well that should be what matters.
  • "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing on episodes" -- Change this to "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing in it".
    • Changed.
  • "Scheuer stated she "earns laughs that aren't even in the script" -- What does this mean?
    • Paraphrased.
I don't doubt that you have done the best possible with the information available, but the article is still rather small. Critical commentary is limited and some structural issues hinder it from being a compelling and gripping read as of yet. I am regretfully leaning towards oppose.--NØ 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments and reviewing something unfamiliar. I have responded above and done my best to address them. Heartfox (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article does look better after the changes made.
  • Second and third lead sentences could stand to be merged a bit. "It was one of the only American primetime programs to star a Latin American woman—María Conchita Alonso—that decade. She features as Maria Conchita Navarro, a Venezuelan immigrant to the United States who begins working in the office of a small construction company and marries its widowed owner, Mike Lukowski (Robert Clohessy)." This is accomplishing two things, improving the flow a bit, and moving the repetition of the words "Maria Conchita" out of the same sentence.
    • Changed; thanks for the suggestion.
  • I'm sure a little synthesis would be fine for the lead regarding critical commentary. It seems obvious from reading the paragraph that the comments directed toward the concept and script were negative whereas critics were more favorable to Alonso's acting.
    • SNUGGUMS offered their support because such synthesis was removed, so no.
  • Considering the small size of the article, I would suggest moving the details with citations in the infobox to the Background section. I think cites in the infobox are generally discouraged and the prose could stand to gain a few more sentences.
    • Moved.
  • "Alonso was initially averse to acting in television" -- Would "on television" sound better than "in television"?
    • Changed.
  • The description for the sixth episode is small. Maybe use the episode itself as a reference to expand a bit?
    • The episode is only available at the UCLA Film and Television Archive in Los Angeles.
  • Why do you say there are no sources describing the genre? I randomly opened this one and it clearly describes it as a "midseason replacement comedy".
    • I am confused as to what you are suggesting. "Midseason replacement" is not a genre and it is already described as a "sitcom" (situational comedy).
  • The same article describes Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" character. I think this gives us valuable insight into the character and should be included, again, given the relatively small size of this article?
    • Added.
  • The same Philadelphia Inquirer piece states Alonso had "many talk show visits with David Letterman and Johnny Carson". Why this is being used as a source for "there was little publicity for One of the Boys" is very confusing to me.
    • It is used to cite "She's scheduled to appear on Late Night with David Letterman on Thursday", which is paraphrased as "Aside from Alonso's appearance on Late Night with David Letterman". I unmerged the footnote. The other visits are in the past, not in 1989 promoting the show. I decided to remove the mention of her Late Night appearance.
  • Another insightful quote from the very same article is completely omitted: "My character has class; she's had an education. She's not the often seen fruit-on-the-head, koochy-koochy type."
    • I have expanded the section with more details.
  • "These six episodes were a trial run; One of the Boys would air a second season starting in September 1989 if it was well-received." -- The framing is a bit confusing. From what I understand, they did not go through with the second season. That should be more clear.
    • It is clear in the next paragraph? The sentence sets up what the result of the episodes is. It would air a second season if it was well-received, but in the next paragraph it is explained that it wasn't well-received. I moved this up.
  • My concerns about the omission of important details stated in the sources are by no means exhaustive, as I just opened one article.
While I initially thought the coverage received was limited, it seems the article really could be expanded more using even just the sources already included in it. Episodes could be directly used as references to expand on the plot. A picture of the cast or this picture of Navarro could be added so there is some visual demonstration of the people involved. At the moment the article is barely establishing the series's notability, it does not constitute the prose standard that unfamiliar-with-the-topic people coming to it from being featured on the main page will find engaging. I am going to refrain from formally voting but some concerns with regards to criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 3, still remain. Regards.--NØ 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Thank you for your time reviewing the article and leaving further comments; I've responded above. Where do you suggest an image of Alonso be added? It would cause sandwiching issues next to the infobox and leaves a huge white space in the critical reception section because {{clear}} has to be used. There were no images of the full cast I came across. I would note the article has already passed an image review. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image of the cast via the opening sequence. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, it has almost been a week and I was wondering if you would like to follow up on your comments/my responses/edits. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I have been busy with an internship I am pursuing currently. The addition of the cast's picture alone (seems to have) improved the article a lot, though I don't have the time to read it again. Will request the closing coord to ping me before archiving the discussion in case I have time then.--NØ 15:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved
  • I am uncertain about this sentence, One of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s, the show received inconsistent Nielsen ratings and was not renewed for a second season by NBC., from the lead. It has two different ideas linked together, when I think it may be more beneficial to represent them separately.
    • Moved to the start of the second sentence.
  • I think it would have been better to keep this part later in the lead and just make it into a separate sentence. I do not see a real benefit of adding it to the start of the second sentence as it is just taking a sentence that was already long and dense with information and adding more to it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance as this is super nitpick-y, but I think the word features sounds a little off in this part, The sitcom One of the Boys features Maria Conchita Navarro. I think saying is about would be sound better. For some reason, something about the word features in the context of a plot summary just seems off to me, but it could just be me.
    • Changed to "follows".
  • The phrase musical efforts in this part, for her musical efforts, seems odd and unnecessarily vague to me. When I looked at Alonso's Wikipedia article, it seems like she received these nominations for albums so I think it would be much clearer to say that instead.
    • The source (Walstad) refers to one album and one single.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Then why not just shorten the part, she had received two Grammy Award nominations for her musical efforts, to she had received two Grammy Award nominations as most people associate the Grammys with music (although they of course give out some awards for non-music ventures like narration). I think the musical efforts part just throws me off. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my only comments and they are very nitpick-y. You have done a very good job with this article, considering how there is so little information out there about this series. I am always happy to see something super obscure like this be brought into the FAC space. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

[edit]

Well, time to look at another short article for FA. The cite formatting is perfect, so nothing to say there.

I also will remind reviewers once again that an article being short doesn't make it incomplete. There's a lot of major network shows like this that get coverage only in the moment, and they're so forgotten there's not even any Buzzfeed list to remember them as "all-time classics" (and that cringey blog considers Jimmy Eat World albums and preschool shows classic, for crying out loud!). Trust me, searches for academic literature gave me nothing no matter what keyword tricks I tried. I also don't blame the critical reception section for being so short. All sorts of these shows from the 1980s and 1990s (and even still in the 2000s and 2010s) don't get that many significant opinions on the series themselves, and when they do, it's always for the first two episodes. Heck, good luck finding any newspaper reviews of later seasons of even some of the most-known TV series (I can say this as someone who's worked on Everybody Loves Raymond articles). The point is is that this is as complete as the article's gonna get, so it meets 1b in that regard. I do have some comments:

Thank you for your perspective. Yes, and it is even worse with this series because no preview was shown to television writers before the first episode aired. Since that's when most reviews would have been written, a lot less reviews are available to include in this article than even another six-episode one.
  • No section describing the premise of the series? I know the cast and characters section has descriptions, and I know it only ran for six episodes, but still... Given how little there is to describe the other starring actors in this series besides the lead actress, I would just make a non-list, full-prose premise section with the actor's names in parenthesis.
    • I changed it from prose to a list a couple days ago, but I guess I'll just rewrite the whole section into a paragraph again given the limited commentary available regarding the other characters.
  • Does the text in Note A really need to be a note? Why can't it be in prose?
    • Good idea.
  • "Alonso described Navarro as an educated woman with class.[2]" I find this short sentence not only screwing up the flow within the paragraph, but also under-presenting what the source presents. In the interview, she brought up the fact that she has education and class to indicate how different the character was from other Latinos in popular media, which is significant as it's established in the background section (and the note)
    • I will incorporate this in the rewrite.
  • Since Latino representation seems to be the major theme, how were Latinos typically presented in media around the late 1980s before this series? Maria Alonso states in The Philadelphia Inquirer interview that they were usually presented as "poor" or "maids".
    • I will add a sentence about that.
  • "The Philadelphia Inquirer's David Walstad described Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" woman " Nope. The source was interviewing the actress and quoted her as saying that.
    • I have fixed this.
  • "Episode tapings—which used stereo sound[20]" Is this significant in anyway? Every series had stereo audio in the late 1980s. That source certainly doesn't add notability to it as it's a listing, not actual coverage.
    • It is insignificant; MaranoFan suggested stuff cited in the infobox be mentioned in prose (the developer and composer weren't before their review), but I think this particular one is best kept as an infobox footnote.
  • I find the prose in the production, critical reception, and "Broadcast history" sections choppy, like a set of short sentences describing things.

👨x🐱 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at ways to reorganize the sentence structure in these sections, but changes will inevitably be limited as there's not any new content that's going to be added.

@HumanxAnthro: Thank you for your comments. I have left some preliminary responses above and will edit the article in depth tomorrow. Heartfox (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I believe I have addressed your comments with recent edits to the article. Let me know what you think and thanks again for your time, Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: It's been a week since you last left comments and I was wondering what you think of the article now. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good except for one thing. You can't have text between an image and an infobox per MOS:SANDWICH. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: I've moved it to the right using the stack template which I've seen on a few other articles. Is that okay? Heartfox (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Assuming "Los Angeles" in the Variety ref should include the state, like the other refs with locations; likewise with Miami, Detroit and Hollywood
  • I don't really understand the consistency in using locations, is there a pattern/some kind of standardization here that I'm missing?
    • Locations are provided when it is not in the work name; states are given when the Wiki article for the location doesn't list it. Should they all give the state? I'm not really familiar.
      • Considering the locations aren't linked to their articles anyways (which is probably for the best), I would think including the state every time makes the most sense. I now understand your approach to including locations or not, but the one that was throwing me off is USA Today—which doesn't seem to satisfy your criteria on that matter. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • Top notch from what I can tell—and impressive given the subject matter
Verifiability
  • I don't really understand "The Meeting" 1989 refs—where in the episode are we getting this information, the credits? Surely there are better sources, if so. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The production information is from the opening and ending credits. However, because it is also used as a footnote for a plot summary I thought it would not make sense to list the credits as the info source so it's just the episode in general. Because most (but not all) was also listed in Leszczak, his book is cited as well.
      • Makes sense, but I'm wondering if that can be made clear in the ref; i.e. putting "(credits)" or something somewhere—if you see what I mean? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks; this is my first time using sfn in an article so I didn't know about the loc= paramater. I've added them in the refs.

@Aza24: thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [33].

Fort Concho

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note by nominator: I have looked at all three of the books Eddie891 linked, and worked two of them, as well as spent some time on JSTOR. I believe I am now (more) ready to proceed with FAC, and will make enquiries. Especially from Hog Farm, over in the Trans-Mississippi in almost the same time period. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Looked at this during the peer review, so I may not find a whole bunch of new stuff. Will try to review this here over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning that there are plans, approval, and funding to reconstruct some more buildings?
  • "The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889, and in that time the fort housed elements of fifteen US Cavalry and Infantry regiments" - Not finding the sum of 15 in the body
  • "and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry" - Phrasing of the first part of the implies that it was the principal base of the 10th Cavalry. Not explicitly stated in the article body, although the presence of 5 companies there in 1880 would imply that it was, as that would have been a big chunk of the unit.
  • "At its greatest extent in the 1870s, Fort Concho consisted of forty buildings on 40 acres (16 ha) of land leased by the US Army. - 40 acres is stated to be the current size of the fort, but I'm not seeing where it's directly specified to have been the greatest extent.
  • "and the federal government abandoned its Texas forts to the Confederate States of America" - Is abandoned or surrendered a better word? Because David E. Twiggs did technically surrender the forts, but it was not a standard surrender, as the US Army kinda just got to leave. So I can see that going either way.
  • "Confederate Texas was unable to secure its territories and was defeated by the Comanche and Kiowa at the First Battle of Adobe Walls," - Wasn't First Adobe Walls a USA cavalry regiment under Kit Carson? Not aware of CSA participation there
  • "In the first seven months of Fort Concho, its garrison – numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas – occupied by its plodding construction" - I think you're missing a word in here
  • " Captain Napoleon B. McLaughlen set out with two companies of the 4th Cavalry and one of the 11th Infantry and confirmed Wilson's report" - Was the 11th Infantry company from Fort Richardson or Concho?
  • "Stationed at Forts Concho, Stockton, Fort Davis, Quitman, and Clark, the 4th Cavalry was tasked with patrolling the frontier, escorting wagons and settlers, and mounting expeditions" - You surely mean the 10th Cavalry, right?
  • "The fort's chaplains were some of the first preachers and educators in the town and its medical staff, chiefly surgeon William Notson also treated civilians" - Should there be a comma after Notson, as "chiefly surgeon William Notson" seems to be an appositive?
  • "Additional buildings, were built in around the fort,[62] including what is now Fort Concho Elementary," - Drop the first comma I think and should it be "in and around the fort"?
  • "National Register of Historic Places October 15, 1966" - missing an "on" I think
  • Exact date of 1-1-1986 for TSAL listing in the infobox isn't fully cited, as only 1986 is cited in the body
  • the Forts of Texas see also link is not needed per MOS:SEEALSO, as it is linked in the article body

Looks like I caught some stuff this time I missed in the PR. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Epicgenius

[edit]

Here are some of my initial comments.

Lead:

  • It was established in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail. The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889 - Is there any way to combine these, as I assume the Army operated the fort immediately from its establishment. How about something like "The US Army established the fort in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail, and operated it until June 1889"?
  • Initially, Fort Concho was the principal base of the 4th Cavalry and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry. - Did the fort serve as base of the 4th and 10th cavalries at the same time, or was it the 4th and then the 10th?
  • The fort was abandoned in June 1889 and passed into civilian hands. - In the first paragraph, it is already mentioned that the fort operated till June 1889.
  • on July 4, 1961 - add a comma after "1961"
  • 40 acres (16 ha) grounds - This should be "40-acre (16 ha) grounds". You can add |adj=on to {{convert}}.
  • As of August 2019, the fort was visited annually by around 55,000 people. - I would use active voice, e.g. "As of August 2019, around 55,000 people visited the fort annually".

Operation by the US military:

  • But in 1849, American colonists began crossing West Texas in large numbers to reach California, where gold had been discovered - It seems weird to begin a sentence with "But". Usually you can drop it or replace it with "However".
  • and among those avenues was the Butterfield Overland Mail route, established in 1858 to bring mail from St. Louis to San Francisco - I would move this to the next sentence, which is On its way through Texas, the route passed through Fort Chadbourne...
  • But after the end of the war in 1865 - Same as above.
  • But later that year, the US Army was ordered to reoccupy its pre-war Texas billets early in 1867 - Same, but "but later that year" may be a little redundant, and you can just say "shortly afterward".
  • identified the junction of the Concho Rivers as an ideal site because of the abundance of water - I also think this is better fit for the next sentence (The site was also desirable for its proximity to the routes it was to guard and for the abundance of nearby grazing land).

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction:

  • Construction of Fort Concho was assigned on December 10, 1867, to Captain David W. Porter, assistant quartermaster of the Department of Texas. - I would suggest either recasting this in active voice, or rephrasing this so that the date is first (e.g. "On December 10, 1867, the construction contract was assigned to Captain David W. Porter...")
  • Progress was slow - How slow? Is it like "100-year construction project" slow, or just your standard delays?
  • In March - In March 1868, I presume.
  • They were followed over the next year by two more officer's residences, another barracks were built, and a permanent guardhouse and stables - You can probably drop "was built".
  • a quartermaster's corral, and a wagon shed - The comma's also unnecessary here, as this is not an ordered list.
  • Construction was again slowed in February 1872 with the discharging of most of the civilian workforce following budget cuts to the US War Department - this phrasing is awkward. I would use active voice for at least part of the sentence, e.g. "Construction was again slowed in February 1872 when most of the civilian workforce was discharged following budget cuts to the US War Department"
  • By 1879, the fort was garrisoned by eight companies of regular soldiers billeted in entirely limestone-built structures,[26] of which there were 39 by April 1889 - 39 limestone structures or 39 soldiers per company? Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base of the 4th Cavalry

  • numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas - This is awkward; I would place the "1869 reports of the War Department" at either the beginning or the end of this fragment.
  • Comanche and Kiowa raids increased in number over the rest of 1871 - Became more frequent?
  • by August,[39] Sheridan, now commanding the Military Division of the Missouri,[11] ordered five expeditionary forces of more than 3,000 soldiers each into the South Plains. - I suggest this can be a new sentence.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base of the 10th Cavalry

  • In July 1877, Captain Nicholas M. Nolan led an ill-fated expedition out of Fort Concho that achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A - The detail that the expedition "achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A" is very interesting. In light of that, though, "ill-fated" may be redundant, but that's just my opinion.
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠
  • The disarmament was delayed until April 16 because of rains, and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arms. - As another editor once said, What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. (E.g. is "and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arm" a complete sentence? It's not, so either the comma should be removed, or you should reword the fragment after the comma to "and it resulted in failure".)
  • The 10th Cavalry transferred permanently to Fort Davis, farther to the west, in July 1882. - do we know why?

Post-Texas Indian Wars and deactivation

  • By the mid-1880s, the ranches that now enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing reduced the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, to patrolling roads. - This sentence is also awkward, largely because "enclosed" is used as a passive verb instead of an active verb. Additionally, there are two thoughts here: the ranches were enclosed with barbed-wire fencing, and the soldiers were forced to patrol roads. I suggest something like this: "By the mid-1880s, ranches enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing; the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, were reduced to patrolling roads."
  • In early 1888, the 8th Cavalry gathered at Fort Concho from around Texas, and then left in June for Fort Meade, South Dakota. - Same issue as above, regarding the comma after "Texas".
    • Removed comma. –07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On June 20, 1889, the men of K Company lowered the flag over the fort for the final time, and left the next morning - Same issue with the comma after "time". Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with San Angelo, Texas

Preservation

  • As early as 1905, however, influential locals tried to conserve the fort. J. L. Millspaugh, one of the sutlers contracted to supply the fort, suggested without success that the city buy the fort - It may just be me but I think "fort" is repeated quite excessively here.
  • A decade later in 1924 - How about just "Eleven years later"?
  • When the museum began expanding into other rooms of the courthouse, Carson moved the museum into Fort Concho's headquarters building on August 8, 1930 - The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the museum was relocated while it was expanding. I would therefore replace "When" with "After" or something similar.
  • The Great Depression and World War II imposed financial difficulties on the museum - I would say directly that the museum didn't have too much funding.
  • The museum was made a department of the city of San Angelo in 1955, but there was only property purchased in that decade - How many properties? Or did the museum just buy property and do nothing else?
  • The second half of the 20th century was to see a change in the Fort Concho Museum's fortunes. - In my view, "change in fortunes" is a little eupheimstic.
  • On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District,[71] and placed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966,[72] by the National Park Service (NPS). - I would standardize the date placement in this sentence structure. E.g. "On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District, and on October 15, 1966, the National Park Service (NPS) placed it on the National Register of Historic Places."
  • and advised both times the expansion of the museum staff. - I would also rephrase this. Either drop "and" (i.e. "...both times advising the expansion of the museum staff") or move "both times" after "staff".
  • Fort Concho Museum and Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations - This is strange because the firm's name is "Bell, Klein and Hoffman", but the sentence structure may indicate "Fort Concho Museum and" is part of the name. I would rephrase this to clarify the distinction between the two entities, e.g. "Fort Concho Museum, along with Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations" (though this sentence already has many commas).
  • On January 1, 1986 - needs a comma after this
  • and announced in 2017 that it would use the donated money and other proceeds to expand its visitors center and rebuild Barracks 3 and 4 over 2018. - The way the sentence is set up, it sounds like the donor from 2015 made this announcement. However, I think the museum made the announcement, so that should be clarified.

Involvement in the YFZ ranch raid

  • This seems like it is a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things. Is it possible to merge this into the previous section somehow, condensing this into one or two sentences?

I'll finish this off later. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds and architecture

  • The material used in the fort's construction was not produced locally - Would it be easier to say "produced elsewhere", "sourced externally", or something similar instead of "not produced locally"?
  • a ventilator and a single chimney each - One ventilator and one chimney?
  • Barracks 1 had two dining halls to Barracks 2's two, - If they both had two, this can be condensed.
  • Barracks 3 and 4 were identical to Barracks 5 and 6. The latter buildings were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt. - This should probably be rephrased. Based on grammar, here "the latter" refers to Barracks 5 and 6, but based on context, I assume it refers to Barracks 3 and 4. Maybe something like "Barracks 3 and 4, while identical to Barracks 5 and 6, were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt."
  • About 50 feet (15 m) of the headquarters building is the former residence of Oscar Ruffini,[96] San Angelo's first civic architect. - 50 feet frontage?
    • Nope, typo. Fixed now.
  • The post hospital was built from 1868 to 1870. - This seems to be a different building than the reconstructed hospital today. I would suggest "The original post hospital..."
  • The houses generally follow an L-shaped plan with a primary residential building and kitchen, connected by veranda - One veranda per house or one veranda total?
  • Officer's Quarters 8 and 9 were built to the same plan as Officer's Quarters 1, and were also completed in 1872. - This comma is not necessary here.
  • Is it "Officers' Quarters" (plural) or "Officer's Quarters" (singular)? Or does each quarters have a different plural?
    • "Officers' Quarters" (plural)
  • The buildings form a duplex stand to the same height and have two fireplaces each. - Should there be a comma after "duplex", or is "stand" an adjective?

@Vami IV: That's it for me. Looks pretty good from my view. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources look good.
  • Spot checks. Comments refer to this version.
    • fn 45: Doesn't say that the 10th Cavalry replaced the 4th
    • fn 66: Text: "including what is now Fort Concho Elementary, constructed on the parade ground in 1907." However the source only says "one of four ward schools"
    • fn 75: "reconstructed Barracks 3 and 4 would house a research library on loan to the museum" Source says Barracks 3 and Mess Hall 4
    • fn 4, 32, 70 - okay
    • fn 37 - okay, although I would have thought that keeping over a hundred women and children captive in a corral over the winter worth a mention, especially in view of the 2008 incident.
  • Link 10th Cavalry on first mention in "Base of the 10th Cavalry" section. Also "one of the two cavalry units of the 'Buffalo Soldiers', commanded by Colonel Benjamin Grierson" is ambiguous; consider re-phrasing.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

This is a really good article. I've reviewed up to the "Relationship with San Angelo, Texas" section now, more to follow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and mighty kind compliment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Grounds and architecture". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last set:

That's the end of my review, phew eh? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (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) 16 May 2021 [35].

National Union of Freedom Fighters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a revolutionary group in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1970s. Because most of their leadership was killed, their story was largely untold until after 2000. When I created this article in 2005 the two sentence summary was all I knew, and almost all the attention they received in most sources. Times have changed, and I think this is an episode in our history that's worth documenting. It's been a long time since I've nominated a FAC, but I think it's a viable, and interesting candidate. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Moisejp

[edit]

I'm going to review this. The article's short length is manageable for my current schedule. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First read-through:

  • The prose is engaging.
  • Inconsistency throughout the article about whether to have a comma after phrases such as "In 1969" and "In February 1970" at the beginning of the sentence.
    I think I got them all. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • When I'm doing leads I try to (more or less) give a proportional amount of the text to the amount of text in each section. There doesn't currently seem to be anything in the lead from Background and formation, even through it's a full five paragraphs of text. I haven't specifically checked the other sections, and am not sure how proportional the lead is for them. What would you think about considering going through and making the lead somewhat more proportional?
    Good point. I've rounded off the lead a little more. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure what precisely "improved intelligence capabilities" in the lead is referring to in the main text.
    That way my (obviously imperfect) attempt to summarise The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation:

Aftermath:

  • "According to historian and former Black Power activist Brinsley Samaroo, Eric Williams, who remained Prime Minister until his death in 1981, was "decidedly harsh"... " It's a bit awkward to have "[name], [name], who..." Also, it's probably relatively clear that the quotation is Williams' words, but could anybody think (even temporarily) that the "According to [name] ...:" structure would suggest the words are Samaroo's? I don't have any easy solutions off the top of my head, but would you have ideas for fixing at least my first issue, and possibly also my second issue (if you think it's valid)? Moisejp (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for these, Moisejp. I believe I have solved the problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there more explanation available about why Samaroo thought Williams' statement was harsh? I understand that the societal issues the rebels were protesting were no doubt valid things to protest, but does the article need more clearly-stated evidence that the police were in fact extremely brutal, and that the rebels' violent measures were the only means they had to bring about change? In itself without extra context, Williams' statement seems a valid point of view. But maybe I'm thinking too much, and the article is not saying Williams was the bad guy, it's simply stating the facts of "Williams said this; Samaroo said that". If so, maybe it would sound more neutral to not frame Williams words around Samaroo's rejection of them. Again, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I wonder whether even if no bias is intentionally implied, the reader may infer a bias here. Moisejp (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is actually quite simple: all Samaroo was saying was that unlike his milder criticism of the Black Power movement, Williams was harsh in his criticism of NUFF. But there's a larger problem here - because so little of this exist on Wikipedia, readers can't just click over to other articles to gather more context. I need to think more about how to solve this problem without making the article too broad and diffuse. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology:

  • A few direct quotations in this section seem probably unnecessary to me and could be easily paraphrased, namely: "seemingly anti-sexist"; "had inherited and which, even though the party condemned it, appeared to serve its purposes"; "grew up around members of NUFF"; "traditional roles of cooking and caring". Moisejp (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed these quotes. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • The Black Power movement is mentioned part way through the Background section, but I believe it's not until the middle of the Guerrilla campaign section that it's explicitly hinted that most or all of the activity between 1970 and 1972 was by "Black radicals" ("Burroughs was seen as a heroic crime-fighter by the middle class and "public enemy number one" by Black radicals"). OK, now I see "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" is also mentioned early on, but I guess I missed this. I leave it up to you about whether you think it is clear enough or whether it be good to mention a little more explicitly that NJAC and WOLF members were predominantly Black. Moisejp (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serial comma used in "They captured 13 shotguns, a pistol, and ammunition" but not in the next sentence "for Jeffers, Harewood and Jacob". I have a feeling you mostly don't use serial commas but it would be good to have a once-through to make sure it's consistent everywhere. Moisejp (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August." Don't know if it's explicitly stated in the source, but I imagine this means the police got information about the group's whereabouts through people coming forward for rewards, and through interrogation, and thus they knew where to ambush the group. If this information is available in the source, it would be better fill in this extra logical step in the text. Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government." For such a broad statement, would it be better to say something like "Historian Jan Kippers Black has argued that NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government"? Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of making this change myself. If it's not precise and needs tweaking, I would strongly urge you to at least include comparable attribution, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have finished my second read-through. When the last points above are addressed I'm expecting to support. I still am not 100% sure there is no small unintended bias towards NUFF as the good guys and Williams as the bad guy, but that's just a vague uncertainty, and I can't put my finger on exactly what would make it so; if no other reviewers think so, I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. (I actually don't have much experience reviewing such political uprising kind of articles, and am not sure what is a normal balance of details when describing insurgencies by an oppressed group.) Moisejp (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I agree with you about the bias. The problem is that the sources tend to see NUFF sympathetically (seeing them as misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal) and Williams less so. Samaroo was active in the Black Power movement, while Meeks arrived in Trinidad just after, and seems to have known NUFF activists. Johnson is probably the most openly partisan of the three of my main sources, seeing NUFF through an anti-imperialist and pro-feminist lens (and Burroughs/Williams/mainstream middle class as the opposite). So while Williams has his admirers, and remains a revered figure among the supporters of the party he founded, broadly speaking, he isn't as well loved among the intellectuals and academics who have chose to write about the period. The problem is that it gets into the "verifiability, not truth" scope of things. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm mostly happy to trust your judgment, and that of any other reviewers who may or may not choose to chime in on this issue. A couple of ideas you could consider before shutting the book on this question: (1) Are there any sources you can add, or citations from existing sources, that present Williams more positively, to present a more balanced picture? The sources maybe wouldn't even need to touch on this particular uprising, but could perhaps just generally talk about his style of governance, or the positive changes he brought about to the country and its people; (2) Without contradicting the existing sources, are there any places in the text where the wording can be tweaked to add neutrality to way details are presented? For the second idea, I have no particular places to suggest, but am just saying that you who are familiar with the content and the sources, may or may not be able to find opportunities for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more idea: About what you said about the sources believing NUFF to be "misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal", I did get just a glimpse of that in the Legacy section, but I wonder whether it might be valid and beneficial to highlight this point more, maybe even in the lead (i.e., that sympathy historians have had for NUFF has not necessarily included a full support for the degree of violence)? I think if this could be highlighted more, it would bring more balance to the article as a whole. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I couldn't find sources to back up my conclusions. I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of Eric Williams' final book, which thanks to Samaroo will finally see the light of day later this year. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm prepared to support at this time, thanks. I still hope you can look at my final comments above to see if there are any ideas in them that it makes sense to use. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say they are definitely needed, but please consider them. Moisejp (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passed, as per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Approaching three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. So far I'm expecting to support on prose, but I can't promise really until I've done a second thorough read-through to see if any big issues I might have missed the first time around jump out at me. I'm currently 3/4 the way through my first read-through. It hasn't been going speedily, but I can try to pick up the pace as much as I can if it makes any difference for you keeping the nomination open. If I make it through the first read-through finding no big issues, chances are fairly high I won't find any the second read-through. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's enough for you to keep the nomination open a little bit longer, but that's where I'm at with my review. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have now finished my first read-through. I can try to work more quickly through my second read-through if it makes a difference for keeping the nomination open longer. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to review this soonish too, but not being familiar with the topic, I was hoping to wait until another review was completed first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask for this to be kept open longer, I'd like to take a swing at reviewing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the experienced reviewers queuing up to have a look at this, consider Damocles' sword to have been removed. Reviewers, feel free to take your time - within reason - and come to a considered opinion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Just my opinion, but I think it helps to relink things on a first appearance basis in the body text outside of the lede, eg. Eric Williams could be linked again. Same with repeating names in full before reverting to their acronym eg NJAC should be "National Joint Action Committee (NJAC)" on first instance in the background section.
  • In the infobox, one of the predecessors to NUFF is listed as "Block Five", but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Trinidad and Tobago became independent in 1962 From the UK?
    • UK, British Empire, West Indies Federation...good question :) But the British Parliament did pass the independence act, so United Kingdom is probably the best choice. Added. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume WOLF wanted to overthrow the government because it had some ideology for replacing it and provided its unemployed members with jobs. If it had some defining political characteristics (socialism, Black Power, etc.) that would be nice to mention.
  • In 1971 the as-yet unnamed revolutionary organisation So WOLF collapsed after the Black Power Revolution and its remnants formed this new unnamed group before it was to become NUFF?
  • attacked an Estate Police Station belonging to the American oil company Texaco The capitalization of estate police station makes it sound like something special and unique. Was this Texaco's private security?
    • Yes it was their private security. The Supplemental Police Act of 1906 created the legal framework for "estate police", which were private police forces for sugar estates. Security companies function within this framework. I followed the source in capitalising it, and I seem to remember Texaco Trinidad's security being called that. But as I'm looking into it now, I can't find evidence for this, so I'm going to de-capitalise it. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying that C. L. R. James was a historian/political activist would be helpful.
  • For the references to journal articles with siginificant page ranges, I think it would helpful to mention the specific page from which info was taken, as has been done with the books.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serail Number 54129

[edit]

Parking my tank on the presidential lawn, as it were. ——Serial 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes SN, but will you be opening fire anytime soon...? If not you might have to wait for the next battle... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm firing blanks, Ian Rose?! Sorry about the delay, am on the. ——Serial 12:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Formed from": formed out of?
  • "the lead Black Power organisation": the country's leading Black Power organisation?
  • "NUFF was anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist in its ideology, and opposed": Ideologically, UFF was anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, opposing..."
Back. & for.
  • Why do you use a mixture of inline and not inline page referencing?
  • Probably worth indicating early on the political leanings of the PNM (soc.-dem, nat-lib. etc) at that time. Otherwise, the nature of the post-independence regime is unknown to the reader.
    • You like to ask hard questions, don't you! :) The PNM's ideology was Eric Williams' ideology. Williams was a nationalist (no Mother Africa, no Mother India, just Mother Trinidad and Tobago), anti-imperialist (Mass day done) with an autocratic streak (when I talk not one damn dog speak). Added something, but it's currently clumsily-worded and I'm going to have to massage the phrasing a bit. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Social mobility...intact": There's an unspoken implication here, as you show there were three classes/ethnicities but only explain the mobility of the lower two. The (unspoken) implication is, therefore, that whites did not drop from the ruling class. Since the discussion at this point is pre-independence, I can well believe it, but can the immobility of whites be clarified?
  • Bearing in mind you use percentages here, would it be possible (perhaps in a footnote) to give some idea of the numbers involved?
  • "the working class Afro–Trinidadians": could lose the "the"; in fact, the bit about their being the PNM's support base would probably fit in the section's first sentence where Williams/PNM are introduced. Would shorten this sentence also.
  • "postponed": Is this the word you want here? I think you could recast the sentence more robustly, e,g. "Much of the economy was in the hands of foreign interests, and the PNM saw this as an obstacle in their stated goal of "social, political and economic equality".
  • Link David Lowenthal at first (and only) mention.
  • "In working-class communities, groups of unemployed...": Suggest, to lose the repetition of "communities", "Unemployed ad under-employed young working-class men organised themselves..."
  • "engaged in violence with": well, yeah; in other words, they fought with rival gangs.
  • Reduce WP:SEAOFBLUE betw. Montreal and centre (which is an unnecessarily long link anyway). Perhaps just take "staged" out of the link.
  • Not sure what this final sentence is doing here; it seems somewhat out of place. The demographics of the org. do not seem obviously relevant to the shooting of one of its members? Suggest you break the paragraph at "despite a desire.." as that leads nicely into the first sentence of the next paragraph, which is relevant. I.e., they felt themselves as being too Black, and therefore attempted to draw in others.
  • "After 10 days...control": repetition of government.
  • "According to Malcom...with the mutineers": Holy sentence Batman! Suggest this is split in two, also to remove the repetitive "mutiny".
  • "through armed rebellion.Inspired": needs a space.
  • "recommended that the group": recommended that they. No need for the first "more".
  • Unless you can name who these "more militant members", don't use a definitive article; it reads just as well to state that "more militant members..." etc.
  • Link court-martial.
  • "suppression of the mutiny. Both men survived the shootings": suppression of the mutiny; both men survived.
  • "virtual collapse": if this is a quote, cite it. Having said that, a compound isn't plagiarism. Suggest "disenchanted with what they perceived as the PNM's virtual collapse following the arrest of its leadership".
  • "other NJAC activists from the Port of Spain": recruits from the Port of Spain. Otherwise, you have "activist" three times in less than 20 words.
Guer. camp.
  • Perhaps link "estate" to Sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
    • The estate police (private police of any kind under the Supplemental Police Act of 1906) in this case were protecting oil installations and "camps" where (mostly foreign, mostly white) management lived. By and large the lands managed by Texaco in the "deep south" were never under sugar, but had either been cocoa or forest lands before those were displaced by oil production. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belonging to the American oil company"
  • "and seized six guns": seizing six guns (also removes a repetitive "and").
  • I'd suggest the bit about Castro be moved to a footnote: it's interesting enough to keep, but isn't directly related to the NUFF's activities at this point. Further to this, if you can, identify when Castro made the suggestion? (Also, add "in 1953".)
  • Three policemen injured would be slightly less ambiguous.
  • "Barclays Bank on Tragarete Road in Port of Spain": the Barclays Bank on Tragarete Road, Port of Spain, was robbed".
  • Five men and a woman.
  • "who took": didn't they steal?
  • And a security guard's revolver.
  • "ambushed a group of NUFF members at a safe house in Laventille later that day. Four NUFF members were killed including Beddoe": ambushed a group of NUFF at a Laventville safe house later that day. Four, including Beddoe, were killed.
  • Has Brian Meeks stopped considering Beddoe's death to be a major blow, etc?
  • Link Textel.
  • "the satellite link connecting Trinidad and Tobago with the outside world": sounds like T&T was the Lost World"! How about something like "T&T's international satellite link"?
  • Police first responders came under attack by the guerillas but managed to injure four of them?
  • Wouldn't Burrough's be even more popular with the white ruling class than the coloured middle class?
    • I can't say (I don't have sources for that) but I suspect not. For local whites, Burroughs was probably too much of a showman, a braggart, and a bit too thuggish. And for the expats, well, he was Black. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 August ": the following day.
  • No need for 2nd "insurgents" ("a group of nine attacked").
  • "attacked the Matelot Police Station": attacked Matelot Police Station?
  • You mention the officer being released, but not his capture; how about "Along with the policeman, they captured 13 shotguns..."
  • "harsh interrogation techniques": is this the actual word used by the source? E.g., if the source uses the word "brutal", it would not be NPOV to use it. Just wondering!
    • Meeks says "increasingly repressive measures undertaken by the police to force suspects to reveal information". I assume he means "brutal", but it's not the words he uses. I've rephrased it to use his words.
  • Also "the possibility of rewards" is a little vague; it sounds as if they launched counter-raids in the hope of one. Obvs you mean that the rewards were intended to garner information on the NUFF positions, etc., but don't actually say so. How effective were they—how many people took them up?
    • Good question. Meeks talks about the carrot and stick (rewards + repression), and Terrance Thornhill, a former NUFF guerrilla told Meeks "So it was that kind of thing, where police were on our heels, people were selling us out and we just running from ambush to ambush." Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the shift in tactics by the police": the police's change in tactics? Simpler.
  • An NUFF sentry.
  • "Kenneth Tenia and Beverly Jones (Jennifer Jones' sister)": You could probably get away with "Kenneth Tenia and Jennifer's sister Beverly", and save a plethora of Joneses.
  • Why did the fate of the Jones sisters have international implications, compared to the other deaths which did not? (If the source doesn't say, no problem, but if it does, it would be worth clarifying.)
    • I think it was a combination of their age and gender (Beverly was 17 when she was killed); they fit well with the narrative of an out-of-control, brutal goverment. Then there was the fact that their sister led the British Black Panthers and had worked with Selma James (who was married to CLR James). I don't think Johnson explicitly says this, but the breadcrumbs are all there (I mentioned Altheia Jones-LeCointe largely to replicate some of those breadcrumbs). Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amath
  • "NUFF was only the second group": to whom?
  • "Eric Williams...was critical in his assessment of NUFF": Hints of WP:MANDY. After all, they were trying to at least remove him from power, if not assassinate him. His opinion, esp. with a long quote, verging on undue?
    • This is a great observation, because it points out something important that's missing from the article - Williams was an historian with a strongly anti-imperialist bent, quite an important figure (see Capitalism and Slavery). It's one of those things that's obvious to me, and entirely missing from the conversation for everyone else. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their decision to engage in an armed struggle..." etc, perhaps, "Meeks has argued that"? I'm not sure if in WP's voice, we should attempt to read the minds of Williams's govt. (I note that every other opinion in this section is cited inline, you see.)
  • "Other members of NUFF played": "Ex-members of NUFF played...", since presumably, the org was by now defunct.
    • Defunct in terms of its ability to carry out an insurgent campaign, yes, but the source I cite here (John LaGuerre) approvingly cites this quote from Selwyn Ryan: " In addition to the radical trade unions, the ULF served as a holding company for the micro-sectarian groups such as...the National Union of Freedom Fighters". So while I don't know, this source suggests that there were still activist capable of speaking for the group. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideo.
  1. Into revolutionary thinking, not towards it! What's the point in entering the door, Vladimir, if you do not open it?
  2. "Believing that revolution as imminent": think you're missing a "w". But notwithstanding, suggest "believing revolution to be imminent"
  • Does the source actually call it an "extreme version of the foco theory"? To my eye, it's a replication of it, and it's hard to see how it was more "extreme"—either in ideology or armed struggle—than anything the M-26-7 did.
  • "Kirkland Paul wrote 'Our just...'": l/c "o".
  • You know, I think this first para could be incorporated into the background section (perhaps with its own header): the reader would surely find it useful to discover the ideology of a group before it begins bombing and shooting than afterwards! The remainder of the section could be titled Historiography, as it's less on how the NUFF saw themselves and more on how they have been discussed in the scholarship.
Leg.
  • "Political scientists have drawn connections NUFF's insurgency and the 1990": missing a (presumed) "between".
  • "Their use of violence to challenge": The NUFF's use of violence", as the previous entity referred to is the Jamaat.
  • "Their use of violence to challenge": in challenging".
  • If Omowale/Thomas was a leading figure in the NUFF, why have we not already encountered him I wonder.
    • He's mentioned in Aftermath in his death sentence for the murder of Austin Sankar (and subsequent pardon). His supporters seem to have considered him and Paul to have been framed for Sankar's murder, but I can't find anything in a source I'd consider approaching an RS. NUFF's leadership was dead before their story was written, I think, and no one has written a comprehensive account (there's almost no analysis, for example, of the propaganda they produced), or really looked at them critically. I hope David Millette will produce something like this eventually. Guettarda (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jennifer Jones-Kernahan (formerly Jennifer Jones)": Suggest "née Jones"; can't avoid the Joneses but can reduce the Jennifers!
Notes
Bloody good article, thanks for doing so much work on it, it's an extremely interesting—and unsurprisingly rarely discussed—slice of history. ——Serial 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A busy time at work and other demands (Spring, my garden) slowed this down a bit, but I think I've gotten to everything here Serial Number 54129. Thanks so much for this extremely detailed and helpful review. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Link Trinidad and Tobago and other terms now only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body too?
  • "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" Anything to link?
  • "was "a postponement of social, political and economic equality" It is often good to attribute direct quotes in-text.
  • Link Port of Spain? Montreal?
  • You mention it was rooted in the black power movement, then a mutiny and shooting of some figures. Was the army and other government organs dominated by white people? If there was such an aspect, could maybe be mentioned for context.
    • The seeming paradox of Black Power in Trinidad was that it was an uprising of Black people against a Black government. There were two prominent white or near-white Cabinet ministers - John O'Halloran and Gerard Montano - and I believe the head of the Coast Guard was white. But the major cogs of the economy - the oil industry, the sugar industry, the banks - were owned by British, Canadian or American multinationals, while the local big business and the best jobs (outside the government service) were largely in the hands of white and near-white Trinidadians. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is maybe something worth explaining in the article for context? If the relevant sources do, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to that effect. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may answer the question above, but comes very far down " and said that they differed from NJAC in seeing class, not race, as the dominant problem in society." So I wonder if it could help with more historical context/background at the beginning of the article, not sure. Perhaps go more into demographics of the country? As you mention Black Power grew among one segment of the population, what other segments were there, and were they ethnic or just class based? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to expand on this. There's more I could add, of course (and one day I hope to create "race and ethnicity in Trinidad and Tobago"). I'm concerned that adding too much more might start to get into WEIGHT problems. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added should be enough, and is great for understanding the context. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few unanswered points left I'm waiting for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • It feels quite basic perhaps, but I would certainly link Marxist in the opening sentence.
  • This source (one of very very few to even mention "Western United Liberation Front" has the abbreviation (logically I suppose) as WULF.
  • "the failed mutiny" the previous para mentioned a failed uprising and a mutiny, is this the same mutiny, i.e. were both the uprising and the mutiny failed?
  • Which ENGVAR? "organizational" vs "organised"?
  • "established a presence in south Trinidad where they established" established ... established...
  • Not strictly this article but the infobox near the top (Social unrest in Trinidad and Tobago) should have a capital M for Arena Massacre, and an en-dash and century for year range (i.e. 1934–1939).
  • "working class Black" the working class should be hyphenated and Black is already linked (to Afro–Trinidadians and Tobagonians) above.
  • "Education, especially university education" education education...
  • Although this sentence doesn't seem specific to this article on NUFF, it's a truism in general, no?
    • It wasn't meant to be. Hall's point is that the Caribbean wasn't South Africa - even in 19th century Trinidad it was possible for the occasional Black man to achieve higher status that the average mix person thanks to education. But it was still the exception to a general pattern (one that still held well enough when I was growing up that exceptions stood out.) Tried to rework it to convey this; hopefully I didn't bungle it. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discriminatory grading practices that resulted in a fire and substantial property damage" the grading practices created a fire?
  • "resulted in ... resulting " repetitive.
  • "youth in Port of Spain and" overlinked.
  • "based of the movement" doesn't read right for me?
  • "the army mutiny. When the mutiny" quickly repetitive again, a few of these.
  • "writings of Che Guevara and Régis Debray" while Che may be well known, I'm not so sure about Debray, worth some context here explaining why the writings of these individuals may have been interesting.
  • "group including John Beddoe recommended" commas either side of "including John Beddoe" (and who was he?)
  • "David Bloom was shot" also shot.
  • "organisation's virtual collapse" perhaps "apparent" rather than "virtual"?
  • "the foco theory revolution" what is this?
  • "by Régis Debray and Che Guevara" no need to repeat their first names.
  • "rough ... roughly" in the same sentence and meaning different things needs refinement.
  • "from which Castro had" -> "from which he had", it's unambiguous.
  • ""a gunfight occurred" I'd go for ensued, or took place, sounds more active.
  • "who stole TT$100,000" any chance of converting this to a currency with which more people are commensurate?
    • Since the TT$ was still tied to sterling at the time, it was easy enough. But trying to convert that to modern currency? I didn't even bother trying to convert it to modern TT$, but trying to convert it to modern US$ gave $280k, while doing the same for sterling gave me £330k. Anyway, sterling equivalent added. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "police, led by Assistant Superintendent of Police" is "of Police" really necessary?
  • I would link transformer.
  • "as a heroic crime-fighter" this doesn't feel like encyclopedic tone, perhaps it's a quote?
  • ""officer was on duty. They captured the policeman, 13 shotguns" ->" officer was on duty, who they captured along with 13 shotguns"
    • Thanks, yes, that helps. Plus removed "officer", which was a slip on my part ("officer" is an Americanisation; the person would almost certainly have been a constable). Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " British Black Panther Movement, " Movement was part of their formal name, so "movement" or just "British Black Panthers".
  • I think "older" should be "elder".
  • "18–22 NUFF members and three" MOSNUM, comparable numbers all numerals or all words.
  • "being Henry's rebellion in Jamaica" year for context?
  • "researched[24] and wrote" never keen on terrifying ref placement like this, I'm certain our readers can wait until some natural break before seeking evidence that he "researched" (and not being worried that he "wrote"!)
  • "Victoria Pasley described..." who? context.
  • Ref 21, avoid SHOUTING in the title.
  • ISBNs should be consistently presented.
  • Ref 23 doesn't have an access date.

That's all I have on a first read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 8 May 2021 (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) 16 May 2021 [36].

MAX Orange Line

[edit]
Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review hoping to make it the third MAX Light Rail-related article to achieve FA after the Red Line and the Yellow Line. Hoping the process is a little smoother this time using the two FAs as models. The Orange Line is Portland's newest MAX extension, having opened in 2015. Its was built following two decades of failed attempts to expand light rail between Portland and Clackamas County. Part of the project saw the construction of Portland's newest Willamette River crossing, Tilikum Bridge, which is notably the country's first major "car-free" bridge (it only allows peds, bikes, and transit). This article has been extensively copy edited and reviewed and would make a great addition to WP's FAs. truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Images appear to be freely licensed
  • Stations image bar displays badly along with table (depending on configuration) for some readers. I would use just one station image, or if multiple are absolutely necessary, then use a horizontal gallery. Multiple images is also suboptimal in that it doesn't scale for the reader preference. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

  • Add alt text to all of the images.
    • Done
  • The tables need row and column scopes, row headers, and captions per MOS:DTAB. To keep the same visual appearance, add "plainrowheaders" next to wikitable sortable.
    • Partly done; upon previewing plainrowheaders it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions?
  • I believe the line transfers coloured circles should have an alt attribute or be accompanied by text (like Amtrak/Greyhound); not just colour/symbol only.
  • Convert the dagger symbol to Template:Dagger and add alt text.
    • Done
  • Convert the down arrow to Template:Down-arrow and add alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
Thanks for the accessibility review, Heartfox. I've addressed all but one, which I'll need more time for. --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the row headers (!) and keep the same colour with style="background-color:#F8F9FA" I believe. The key table also needs scopes/row headers. You haven't added {{down-arrow|alt=}} yet. Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox I just used the subst template suggested in the down-arrow template page, and when you save it it reverts to the icon only (shrug). --truflip99 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review, and reserving a place. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Caption: "Most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan". Suggest 'Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan where most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service' so readers are told what they are looking at first.
Done
  • "and runs southbound only within downtown Portland". Is "only" needed?
Omitted
  • "From there". From where?
Clarified
  • "it operates". Is this USvar? It makes no sense in ENGvar - it describes the line itself operating a distance(?)
Reworded
  • "The line serves 17 stations between Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue". The way you have described it, the 17 stations are exclusive of Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue. Is this correct?
Reworded
  • "This MAX extension". Does "this" refer to the second or first phase? (Or both?)
Clarified
  • "Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station". Should "station" not have an upper case S? And in other similar cases?
WP articles for transit stations in the west lowercase "station" as it is often not part of the formal name/train announcement.
  • What is a "transit mall alignment"?
Reworded as "transit mall tracks"
  • What does "through-operates into" mean?
Through train, rail term that means a train changes name mid-operation
  • There should not be information in the infobox which is not in the main article.
This article is a child of the parent MAX Light Rail; I moved the stock param to the main, but I think some of the technical params are quintessential items that railfans look for. These params do not necessarily need to be expanded upon in the body of a child article, since they the same across all other lines for American light rail systems. The same cannot be said for other transit systems in other countries however.
My US Eng is usually passable, but I don't understand most of that. Is it in RAILvar? ;-) Regardless, the MOS requires that anything in the infobox needs to also be in the main article. Is this now the case?
Yes, omitted.
History
Done
  • "ultimately built with light rail". This reads oddly. Especially to non-US eyes. I assume it was built with cement and steel. Possibly rephrase?
Reworded
  • "regional government Metro". I don't think this is grammatical. 'The regional government, known as Metro, ...' or similar?
Omitted
  • "as well as proposed a conversion". "proposed" → 'proposing'.
Reworded differently
  • "Noting federal funds could only be spent on one light rail project at a time, Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) made the I-205 line its next priority after the westside line due to the existing I-205 Transitway right-of-way and the McLoughlin Boulevard line its third priority." This sentence is covering a lot of ground. Consider splitting.
Split
  • "Clackamas County officials went on to dispute the federal money." A little more detail here would be helpful.
Expanded
  • "Metro released an official regional transportation plan". Is "official" necessary?
Omitted
  • "and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members". Why the commas?
Introductory clause for the first one; nonrestrictive clause for the second (and third) one
My bad - comma after introductory time period. Those look so odd to me that I just didn't realise that that was what it was. Apologies.
  • "which TriMet officially called the "South/North Line"." Is "officially" needed?
Reworded to "formally"
  • " "nearly two-thirds" " I see no need to put this in scare quotes.
Omitted
  • "Three months later, 69 percent of voters in Clark County rejected increases" I think you need to briefly introduce the concept of local plebiscites in the US here.
How so? I don't see any more to it other than they voted and said no..
The concept of an electorate voting on a specific and detailed proposal such as this is alien to most of the democratic English-speaking world. Most of it elects politicians to make those decisions. Hence a word or two explaining that things are different there will be a great enlightenment for many readers.
@Gog the Mild: I've rewritten it, hopefully to better explain that the proposed funding sources for the project in question needed voter approval (not the project itself). I can't speak for similar projects in other parts of the US, however, so I will refrain from generalizing local plebiscites in the US.
That works nicely, IMO.
  • "69 percent of voters" or '69 percent of those who voted'?
Done
  • "Planning for the South/North Line later resumed when TriMet released". Is "later" necessary?
Omitted
  • "scaled back the line's northern half to the Rose Quarter". In what way was it scaled back?
by "eliminating its North Portland and Clark County segments"; reworded a bit
  • "and narrowly rejected it by 52 percent". One of "narrowly" or "by 52 percent" seems redundant to me.
Omitted
  • "which evaluated mode alternatives for each corridor." Honestly, I don't know what this is trying to say.
Reworded
  • "They later amended the first phase to include an extension of light rail along the Portland Transit Mall when planning for the second phase revealed a fourth service along the existing downtown tracks on Morrison and Yamhill streets, which were already served by the Blue, Red, and Yellow lines, would push that alignment to maximum capacity." This seems an over busy sentence. Split?
Done
  • "The LPA also reaffirmed decade-long calls". Optional: consider rephrasing. I am not sure that "reaffirmed" is the best word, and a decade-long call brings an odd mental image to my mind.
Reworded
  • "amid the placement of Measure 3-401". What does "placement" mean in this context?
Reworded; "placed on the ballot" is a term we often use
  • "a special election ballot". Would it be possible to have an in line explanation of what this is?
Beyond the scope of this article, it's when a politician's seat is vacated and needs to be filled
Writing the article in generally understood English is not beyond its scope. Either don't use specialist/parochial terms or explain them in line. So an anti-light rail initiative was placed on a ballot to fill a vacant political seat? You what?
I've omitted special elections to avoid confusion and did some rewording. But whenever an election occurs in the US, you can include proposed legislation in the ballot.
  • "begin purchasing right-of-way and construction materials". What are "right-of-way ... materials"? Or do you mean 'begin purchasing rights-of-way and construction materials'?
Fixed
  • "Construction began later on June 30". Delete "later".
Deleted
  • "Right-of-way preparation work". I assume that this is a USvar phrase. Would it be possible to rewrite in a more generally comprehensible way?
Reworded
  • "As part of construction" → 'As a part of construction' or 'As part of this construction' or similar.
Fixed
  • "safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, allowing them to be designated quiet zones". This seems vague. Do you mean 'safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, which allowed them to be designated quiet zones'?
Yes
  • "the project had been completed by 50 percent." This is not grammatical.
Fixed
  • "18 new Siemens S70 vehicles". Could there be a little more detail as to what these "vehicles" were? I am guessing that my confusion comes from meaning something in USvar which it doesn't to me.
light rail vehicles
  • " previously elimiated project elements". ?
Whoops
  • "totaling $3.6 million". Do you mean 'at a total cost of $3.6 million'?
Done
  • "the first trips with around 500 passengers,". Do you mean that, or should it be 'the first trips, with around 500 passengers,'?
Reworded
  • "ran at regular operating speed" → 'ran at the regular operating speed'.
I believe 'the' is correct, at least in US Eng.
I believe 'the' is correct too. Does that mean that you are going to include it?
Sorry, I meant to say incorrect. Saying "the regular operating speed" would suggest that that specific speed was established prior to this phrase, which it wasn't.

I am going to pause here to allow the comments above to be addressed. I also strongly recommend a copy edit of the remaining sections prior to my coming back to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the thorough review thus far. I've addressed everything requested and did another CE of the following sections. I had this reviewed by GOCE... not sure what happened there. --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at your responses yet, I'll do that once I have finished the rest of the article. GoCE is usually pretty good - but I've copy edited half a million words for them, so I guess that I would say that - but can be patchy, depending on who you get as a copy editor. Still, some of what seems to have been missed is disappointing. I shall try to get the rest done tomorrow, and review your responses by the end of the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route
  • "The Orange Line serves the 7.3-mile-long (11.7 km) Portland–Milwaukie extension. The Orange Line begins farther". "The Orange Line ... The Orange Line". Some variation?
Changed
  • "the line enters the Kellogg Bridge". I'm not sure that a line can enter a bridge.
Changed
  • Caption: "A geographic map". It may be me, but "geographic" seems redundant; what other type of map might a reader think it is?
Just to say it isn't a schematic map as is often associated with transit. But I can get rid of it.
Ah. OK. No, that makes sense.

And that would seem to be all. Could you ping me once these last three issues are addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Again, really appreciate you taking the time. Sorry it took me a minute with your nom as I've been rather busy lately. --truflip99 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. However, the coordinators may be watching the clock so it would be best to keep this moving along. For example, you may wish to prompt Sounder Bruce. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sterling work is addressing my comments. A few responses from me above. If I haven't responded you can assume that I am happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you! I've responded to your responses. --truflip99 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good and detailed article. Looks to me to meet the criteria. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I'll leave comments within a few hours. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • second part of the two-phased South Corridor Transportation Project that in its first phase expanded - I suggest something like "second and final phase of the South Corridor Transportation Project, the first phase of which expanded". If there were only two phases, then the phrasing "second part of the two-phased" is unwieldy.
    • Revised
  • From PSU South/Southwest 6th and College station, the Orange Line through operates into the Yellow Line as a northbound service of the transit mall on 6th Avenue, terminating at Expo Center station in North Portland. - It took me a bit to figure out what was going on (even though I understand through services). For this sentence, I would suggest "operates through to" instead of "through operates into". Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded it accordingly, but I just took that phrase from the Through train article.

@Epicgenius: Thanks for remembering! --truflip99 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • In 1975, the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) proposed a series of "transitway" corridors in the Portland metropolitan area amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region - I suggest moving "amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region" to after "In 1975". Right now, the lack of punctuation is weird. E.g. "In 1975, amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region, the Columbia Region Association of Governments..."
Done
  • with the exception of a light rail corridor running from downtown Portland to Oregon City in Clackamas County with a spur line from Milwaukie to Lents, which would occupy the old Portland Traction Company rights-of-way - This sentence is also long and I think this can largely be its own sentence.
Done
  • Indecision about the exact use of the transfer money, as requested by the Federal Highway Administration,[7] led to a delay in acquiring the funds - I also suggest using active voice.
Done
  • this bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, ran physically separate from but parallel to the freeway - Also its own sentence, probably. I'd also rephrase to avoid "separate from but parallel to", which is a clunky wording, e.g. "This bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, was a physically separate route running parallel to the freeway." Just out of interest (not required), did it run in the median or elsewhere?
Done. It does run in the median along the MAX Red Line segment!
  • Several months before the inauguration of MAX, Metro—the successor to CRAG— - Not required, but when did CRAG get replaced by Metro? I would suggest "CRAG's successor, Metro,..."
Expanded
  • proposed converting the partially built I-205 Transitway between Portland International Airport and Clackamas Town Center from a busway into another light rail line - I'd consider splitting this too. It is quite a long sentence.
I think it's fine, just a compound sentence.
  • went on to dispute - How come this isn't just "disputed"?
Just timeline wording to say that they disputed afterwards
  • and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, - They seem to be U.S. senators from these respective states, so it would more appropriately be "U.S. Senators Mark Hatfield from Oregon and Brock Adams from Washington". Whereas "Oregon Senator" and "Washington Senator" may seem like it's referring to state senators.
Good call
  • Planning for the South/North Line resumed when TriMet released a revision - When did this happen?
Clarified
  • revised the package but in November, - comma after "package"
Done
  • and it would have terminated another mile north of Lombard Street in Kenton. - This part of the sentence sounds strange. Maybe "so it would terminate another mile north..."
Done
  • the TriMet board elected to reaffirm voter support - This is also clunky, if you mean the TriMet board decided to hold another vote on a new draft measure.
Reworded
  • In October 2000, the committee narrowed the range of alternatives in a report that outlined building either both light rail lines, a combination of a light rail line and an improved bus service, bus rapid transit, or dedicated bus lanes - This sounds awkward because it seems like this really should be two sentences. "In October 2000, the committee published a report that narrowed the range of alternatives. The report outlined constructing..." Also, "either both" sounds strange, even though it's pretty clear what you're talking about.
Reworded
  • a two-part expansion, the second phase of which - This feels a bit repetitive, only because you already mentioned the expansion only has two parts.
Reworded
  • While planning for the second phase, analysis showed - This is a dangling modifier, i.e. who was planning?
Clarified
  • TriMet designed the new bridge to be "car-free", banning private vehicles and accommodating only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country - This also seems a little repetitive, in that if "only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians" could be used on the bridge, you don't need to mention that it's both car-free and that it bans private vehicles. One or the other would suffice, or even neither: "TriMet designed the new bridge to carry only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country".
Reworded
  • due to Measure 3-401 - Did the measure force the amount to be reduced? Or did TriMet make the decision after seeing the measure proposal?
Yes and yes
  • 50-percent completed - I would suggest just "halfway completed".
Done
  • these were designated "Type 5" - Should this be before the semicolon? E.g. "The agency purchased 18 new Siemens S70 light rail vehicles, designated "Type 5"; the first car arrived in Portland that September."
Done
  • up to $40 million under budget. - This is also a strange sounding wording, because "up" and "under" aren't usually juxtaposed. How about "as much as $40 million under budget"?
Used "around"
  • the first train ride, which carried 500 passengers - Usually, trains or scheduled trips carry 500 passengers, not train rides.
This is probably to clarify that it was the first train to carry the public along the extension. I changed it to "public train ride".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Epicgenius! Comments addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route

  • Orange Line service begins farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station near Portland Union Station in downtown Portland - I would suggest adding a comma after "farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment", since the phrase "at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station ..." is a distinct idea.
It is not a distinct idea actually
  • following an intersection with Naito Parkway. - This wording could probably be improved. Does the alignment follow the intersection physically, or does it come after the intersection? I assume it's the latter, but "follow" is usually interpreted as the former when you're talking about alignment.
Done
  • The line then crosses the Willamette River on Tilikum Crossing - Do both lines use the bridge?
Yes, nice catch
  • the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge, an elevated viaduct that carries it across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue. - "Elevated viaduct" may be unnecessary because this is typically what a bridge is. E.g. "the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue".
Done
  • Many stations along the Orange Line have public artwork, erected as part of TriMet's public art program - Usually, at least in my experience, artwork is "commissioned" rather than "erected".
I could not think of that word for the life of me. Thank you!
  • as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system - I would move this to immediately after "In 2015". e.g. "In 2015, as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system, TriMet proposed installing turnstiles..."
Done

Service

  • which extends up to 30 minutes in the early mornings and late evenings - I would rephrase this, as 30 minutes is considered a decrease in service, even though it is an extension of the headway.
Done
  • On a side note, I see there are really only 2 Orange Line night bus trips on weekdays and 1 night bus trip on Saturdays and Sundays. That level of bus service is basically a chartered trip, not even an actual route, which I found funny.
That's TriMet for you.

@Truflip99: These are all the comments I have. Once these are addressed I will most likely support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have been addressed. Thanks again, Epicgenius! --truflip99 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. I would also like to note that I will claim this review in exchange for points in the WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk)

HF

[edit]

I'll also take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It carried an average of 11,500 daily weekday riders in September 2019" - Is this figure just the extension discussed in the sentence before this in the lead, or is it the total ridership for the whole Orange line? Lead implies the former, body and infobox the latter
    • Done
  • "Despite the South/North Line's cancellation, North Portland residents and city business leaders continued to push for light rail." - Earlier in the paragraph, we're told that North Portland residents generally opposed light rail, so the use of "continued" seems odd to me
    • It is not stated that North Portland residents ever opposed light rail, but I did change a word to make it less confusing
  • "In August 2009, the transit mall reopened with light rail service from the newly rerouted Yellow Line.[58] The I-205 MAX extension opened the following month with a new Green Line service." - This appears to be out of chronological order compared to the material surrounding it
    • I have rewritten this to hopefully make it more clear, but this sentence just supports the statement before it, which talks about the first-phase project and the transit mall light rail addition. I deemed it appropriate to put here just to finish talking about it because both phases were planned simultaneously and the first phase is its own topic.
  • "FTA to approve the addition of switch heaters, catenary ice caps" - What's a catenary ice cap? This needs a link or a gloss or something, as its going to be confusing to most readers, including myself. In fact, the vast majority of hits for "catenary ice caps" in a Google search I attempted to try to find out what this means are from mirrors of this article. This phrase will be confusing for the vast majority of readers without an explanation of what these things are.
    • I'm going to eliminate that part for now, as it seems to lack notability
  • Link the Yellow Line in the body
    • Interstate MAX and MAX Yellow Line are synonymous, as are I-205 MAX and MAX Green Line. Should I link both?
      • I think the fact that they are equivalent could be made clearer in the article. For instance, I took "which led to the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line opening in 2004" to be referring to two separate things.
  • If the Portland State University connection is important enough to be included in the lead, why is it not mentioned in the prose section of the body; just the table?
  • "The total length of Orange Line service, which includes a segment of the Portland Transit Mall, is undetermined" - I'm not a fan of the use of "undetermined" here. That can mean that they whole length is not known or calculated, while the source just doesn't mention it, which is different than stating that something is "undetermined"
    • Reworded
  • " As of 2020, these plans have not been enacted" - We need another source for this statement. The current source is from 2015 and refers to 2016 and 2017 in the future tense, so it's not going to be useful for what has been done by 2020
    • Added some refs, but had to change it to 2019
  • Do we have a citation for the list of station names?
    • Added
  • "Fewer trains run during weekends" - This seems to be an oversimplification, IMO. Pulling up a current to Milwaukie weekday schedule and a current to Milwaukie Saturday schedule, the difference appears to be two trains in the 7am-8am span, unless I missed something. Two fewer trains in a service of that size doesn't seem to be a particularly large drop, and the un-nuanced "fewer trains run during weekends" would imply a bigger drop.
    • I've simplified it because the schedule gets updated sometimes. But I've gone ahead and removed that sentence.
  • This makes it seem a little significant that the line doesn't link to the Milwaukie bus hub, is that worth mentioning?
    • I've not mentioned it, because TriMet insists that it does
  • We seem to have a comprehensiveness issue: the topic of public art along the line has some coverage such as [37], [38]. In fact, we even have an entire Category:Sculptures on the MAX Orange Line. I find it hard to believe that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all.
    • It was decided a while back that these topics should be covered on the individual stations which house the public art pieces. I will work on that eventually.
      • There still seems to be enough coverage of these that I would at least expect a sentence or two along the lines of "Many of the stations along the MAX Orange Line have public artwork ..." or something like that. Agree a list or full detail is probably undue, but at least some sort of mention seems warranted here. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thank you, I really appreciate it! --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, and 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

These aren't necessarily part of the FA criteria, but I think these should be cleaned up while we're at it.

These are not mentioned in the article. Either they're significant and represent non-comprehensiveness of the article, they're mispointed, or they're just junk, in which case WP:RFD is needed. Hog Farm Talk 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These for now have been redirected elsewhere. Although I've never heard of the MAX Gold Line, I'll have to request a deletion for that. --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent MAX Gold Line to RFD. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Will conduct one in a bit, seeing as I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online resources. SounderBruce 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting notes:

Otherwise, the formatting is neat and I don't see anything that jumps out. I will do a spotcheck later today. SounderBruce 19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce. It's actually Portland State University for the first one. Anyway, I've addressed both. --truflip99 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SB were you still going to perform a spotcheck? If you could also consider source reliability that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do both as soon as I'm able to (likely over the weekend if my vaccination side effects aren't too bad). SounderBruce 07:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, the vaccine did have a bit of an effect on me.

  • Source reliability: No issues with The Oregonian, Tribune, Railway Gazette, Trains, The Atlantic, as all are accepted as reliable and high-quality print sources with online mirrors.
  • Primary sources such as TriMet, Metro, and FTA are not overused
  • Ref 21's page number can be moved out of the {{rp}} template.
    • Done
  • Ref 61 should link Portland Tribune
    • Done
  • Does Ref 91 cover all that prose in the Stations section? It's a bit of a stretch and I would like to see other sources added here to reduce confusion.
    • Thanks for catching that! Added more refs
  • I recommend combining the Google Maps citations into a single link, as I assume they are mainly being used for their satellite data. It would help cut down on the overlinking as well.
    • Combined to one ref

Spotchecks (per this version): 3, 6, 15, 21, 35, 43, 52, 67, 74, 93, 108, and 113 all match the prose without close paraphrasing. Generally think this is good to go, aside from the issues I raised above. SounderBruce 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SounderBruce, I've addressed all of these. Glad the vaccine ultimately went okay for you (it took me out as well). --truflip99 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Sources now meet the requirements in the FA criteria. SounderBruce 23:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

Comments soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Station heading southbound" ->" "Station and heads southbound"
    • Done
  • "riders in September 2019" knocking on for two years old now, any update available?
    • Updated
  • What's a "major" bridge?
    • I've reworded this
  • "In February 1996, state ... In February 1997" mildly repetitive.
    • Reworded
  • "another mile north" consistently convert.
    • Done
  • "vote on a new $475 million bond measure ... voted on the measure" repetitive.
    • Reworded
  • "rejected it by 52 percent" I'm no good with maths any more, do you mean 52 percent of people voted against it?
    • Indeed
  • "the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line" these link to the same article.
    • Combined
  • I don't think we need to link bicycle or pedestrian, common English words.
    • Omitted
  • "at $1.49 billion (equivalent to $1.6 billion in 2019 dollars)" the first inflation, but many values have gone without inflation and the further back the more important such conversions are for contemporary context. I would do the inflation every time.
    • I do this only for the total project cost to mitigate confusion as some funding pieces are provided in different years. I'd prefer to keep it that way, but will oblige if you disagree.
  • "rights-of-way" you've linked this twice, to different articles, but which one is relevant to the time you haven't linked it?
    • Oops, fixed
  • "allowing these crossings to" -> "allowing them to"
    • Done
  • "Governor Kate Brown" is there a link for Governor?
    • Added
  • "the 7.3 miles (11.7 km)" should be adj=on.
    • Oops thanks for catching that
  • "became interlined with" this links to "through train" but I had to click away because I have no idea what "interlined" means.
  • "through-operate " this is a grim construction, does it mean "through trains operate"?
    • Changed to "operate(s) through"
  • I think it would be legitimate to link viaduct.
    • Done
  • "at-grade" link.
    • Done
  • "As of 2019, these plans have not been enacted" any update for 2021?
    • 2019 is the latest source I've found to mention it
  • Are the coloured blobs in the table accessible to colour-blind readers?
    • They are TriMet official colors, which claims 100% accessibility. So likely.
  • [107][92][c] - not essential but everywhere else is in numerical order.
    • Done
  • "Serves OMSI, Tilikum Crossing" etc in table Tilikum needs to be linked. If table is sortable, all linkable items should be linked each time as there's no assurance that the linked item will come first after a re-sort.
    • Done
  • I note the schedules (at least some of them) were updated on 2 May, so you can revise the times/numbers as required in the Service section.
    • Done, although the schedule changes pretty often which is why I use the as of tp (changed again May 9)
  • Ref 68 has different date format.
    • I think it's been fixed? I can't find a ref using a different date format

That's it, an excellent article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some. Will finish later today. --truflip99 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still some left, sorry this is taking me a minute. Been a tad busy. --truflip99 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Take your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I believe I have addressed all of your points. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article! --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good for me. To be honest I struggled to find much I didn't like about it first time round and now my minor issues have been addressed I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I think I've garnered everyone's support. May we move forward? --truflip99 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that TRM's review is complete, I think so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [39].

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the single most valuable association football match in the world. It's out for a second trip to FAC, first time round it gained nine supports but there were some subjective issues over understandability of some of the prose. That kind of objection seems to have levelled off lately and common sense has somewhat prevailed on a good balance between being made to explain everything and using linking to help with such matters. As always, I'm more than happy to address any constructive criticism which will improve the article The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reiterating my Support in the last FAC, though a non football person. Some quibbles that are hardly deal breakers.
  • The terms leg and aggregate are blue linked, but could you be more descriptive on first instance. eg, I found this confusing until Andy Walker made it 2–2. With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time.
  • The lead is very stats and process heavy; can we minimise this as far as possible and give more to the flow of game itself
  • firm header - firm?
  • Sheffield United's opposition in the semi-finals was Ipswich Town. - played against Ipswich Town in the...
  • went ahead in the 40th minute through Jan Åge - "The home side's Jan Åge scored in the"..."went ahead" is a bit jargony, and "through" could be "when Jan Åge scored"
  • The image in the infobox is at a reduced size and puny.

Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • last thing. Should the CRY V SHU Play Off Final 1997, 01:12:52 refs be combined into one; for eg we don't notarize on-line magazines into line 5, line 15, line 20. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London had won a play-off,[64] and they were immediately installed as favourites to be relegated the following season by bookmakers - They won but became favourites to be rellegated?
Ok, but that's counter intutative and could be made clearer in the text. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to detail Fjørtoft's yellow card earning "altercation" against Tuttle
  • What was he send off for - altercation seems very vague am left thinking thinking anything from kicking heads to pinching bottoms...kicked the feet from under / fouled ina nother way? I'm sure the commentators were not too dainty to say. Ceoil (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pass into the box went across the faces picked up by Dyer, who under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in. Can you rephrase "under challenge from" and "went across the face of" Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil cheers for the support and the additional comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to note, all my points addressed. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "to gain promotion from the second tier Football League First Division to the English Premiership" - slight sea of blue here making it look like the name of the competition was the "English Premiership". Even if that issue is resolved, the name is incorrect - although its sponsored name was the Premiership, its actual name at the time was the FA Premier League and I believe that is what should be used
  • "while clubs placed from third to sixth in the league table competed play-off semi-finals" - missing "in"
  • "The winners of the semi-finals played against each other for the final place in the Premiership" - again, wrong name
  • "finished bottom of the 1997–98 Premiership" - and again
  • "Both missed out on the two automatic places for promotion to the Premiership" - and again
  • "The second leg of the semi-final was played four days later at the Molineux Stadium" - I have never heard it called "the" Molineux
  • "The return leg took place at Portman Road in Ipswich four days later" - you didn't say when the first leg was played, so "four days later" is meaningless
  • "after being relegated from the Premiership in the 1993–94 season" - guess :-)
  • "Howard Kendall, the Sheffield United manager, was making his twelfth appearance at Wembley Stadium" - is this just counting his appearances there as a manager? I'm pretty sure he played there too......
    The source says it was the twelfth time he'd walked out at Wembley. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obviously Sheffield United are a good side, you have to be to get this close to the Premiership" - I'll let you off this one as it's a direct quote :-)
    Hence the potential confusion in the previous edits, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven minutes later, Kevin Muscat won the ball which then fell to Dyer" - comma needed after ball, I think
    I don't think so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his cross was too close to Tracey who gathered it" - comma needed after Tracey, I think
    I don't thnk so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 31st minute, Andy Linighan was caught in the face by Taylor" - might be worth clarifying - was he caught by his boot? His elbow? Something else?
  • "Sheffield United kicked the second half off " => "Sheffield United kicked off the second half" would be preferable, I think
  • First para of the second half has six consecutive sentences which all start with some minor variant of "On N minutes" - any way to vary this a bit?
  • "from the right-hand side of the Sheffield penalty area which was flicked on by Gordon" - the penalty area was not flicked on
  • "claimed that his goal was "the most special goal [he] has ever scored" - if he was referring to a goal he himself scored, surely the verb was not "has"?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude addressed other than where I've commented. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

@FAC coordinators: since this nomination has four supports, can I nominate another please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, it looks to be ticking along nicely, but I would want to see a source review pass before allowing a second nomination. We would also want to see the nomination open for a decent period, to give an opportunity for all reviewers to notice and potentially comment on it. Three weeks is the rule of thumb, but there is some flexibility in this. (Eg see [40] and [41].) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source review and image review took place in the previous nomination and nothing not much has changed. Obviously there's no need to revisit that or wait for some arbitrary time period when this is now holding more support than is normally required for a promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another source review on the additional refs passed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Six supports and an updated source review now passed. Can you let me know, if not now, then when I can nominate another FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: any clues? I am somewhat on top of this.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I had no issues with this article the first time around. Happy to give my blessing a second time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review by Amakuru - Passed. Note that I performed a source review on 6 January 2021, and I passed it at that point so just reviewing the four refs that have changed since then:
  • Support - in addition to my source review here, I'm happy to reconfirm my general support which I gave last time. Neither the changes since then, nor the objections which were raised after my !vote, fundamentally change my view that this is an excellently written and thorough summary of the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [43].

The 1975 (2019 song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱

[edit]

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

  • The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
    • I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the type= feature in the Infobox template be "Promotional single"? It obviously wasn't first released as part of the album release.
  • Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing WP:RECEPTION frowns up.
    • Can you give an example or two? I have actually used Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections immeasurably often over the last few years and it's what I was going for here (assuming this is the page you meant—WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
    • Alright, WP:RSP notes some disputes over the reliability of the source but this comment and the idea here of avoiding WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
    • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
    • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
  • I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Are you feeling able to either oppose or support this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've noticed on a re-read this article suffers from fluffy prose:
    • "measures by the band which had the aim of reducing their environmental impact." Couldn't it just be presented as "to reduce their environmental impact".
    • "she was the first featured artist on a recording by the 1975 other than the band members;" Featured artist is by definition someone who is on a track by an act they are not a part of, so saying "other than the band members" is redundant.
    • "which was founded" Why is "which was"
      • My knowledge of grammar isn't brilliant but the term for that would be something like dangling modifier—"The song was produced under the label Dirty Hit, founded by the 1975's manager Jamie Oborne" could be misread as saying the song was "founded by" Oborne, as the subject isn't "Dirty Hit" unless you add the "which was". — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning" Does the fact that the band criticized their past criticism add anything? Why can't you just say that before, they criticized guest appearances as a method to improve commercial performance?
      • That's not what the sentence means. It's all one thing: they previously said that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. It previously read "a perceived convention" but another reviewer recommended "their perceived convention". In line with your confusion, I've tried something new: the band had previously criticised that guest appearances in music were primarily intended to improve chart positioning. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The musical styles of each version set the tone for that album" Odd sentence, plus the source only states each album starts with "a self-titled prelude that sets the mood for what's to come". It doesn't talk about "style" setting the mood.
      • This has been added based on feedback from others about how to best communicate the context of the first three albums' title tracks. "Musical style" is simple rephrasing as it can refer to any aspect of the music other than its title and lyrics, both of which are literally identical for the first three albums and hence not what the source means. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "*Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph observed that the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers—who previously voted against initiatives to limit carbon emissions—became the UK Environment Secretary on the day of the release." Is the attribution really necessary? Isn't it fact that she was elected on that day?
      • The fact wouldn't be neutral to mention without the attribution. It would violate synthesis. Take the canonical The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. This would be the same with the subtext here: "The 1975" is about climate change not being taken seriously. Ironically, the Environmental Secretary appointed on the day of the release opposed climate change action. Attributing this to Al Horner of The Daily Telegraph shows you that this comparison isn't coming from Wikipedia, but that a reliable source is making this point, and that it's only Horner's view that this is relevant. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: All responded to. Thank you for the additional comments. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find fluff anywhere else? You sure you went beyond my examples? 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article again, top to bottom, here and made things as concise as I can without harming readability. — Bilorv (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Missed a ping—what do you think, HumanxAnthro?) — Bilorv (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort, but I still feel there are some things that could be improved?
  • Aren't Sean Lang and Laura Snipes' opinions equivalent? It seems like both have the same praise of the band allowing Thunberg to present herself fully without anything distracting it (whether it's through Healy speaking or the music being overpowered). Why state in two sentences their similar opinions? Seems repetitive
  • No, Lang's is about Healy not being egotistical or speaking on a topic he's not got specialist knowledge on. Snapes is about Healy not being sexist or mansplaining. The opinions are related, hence their consecutive placement and the connective, but not the same. I don't feel that fewer words can be used to describe the two opinions without violating synthesis, as none of the points enumerated are the same. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, OK. My apologies, I didn't catch that first. I do think you were trying to suggest Snapes' opinion was related to gender by using the phrase "highlight a woman's voice", but I don't imagine a casual reader getting this at first, especially since Greta was under 18 at the time of the song's release, not exactly a woman, ya know? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 27 July 2019, Consequence of Sound named the song their favourite of the week" As much as it's dumb when people do WP:WHOCARES arguments... Is this really needed? We're presenting the general consensus of all critics, and I don't think a random music blog giving a "song of the week" badge that other blogs do is that significant.
  • Consequence is one of the most significant indie publications worldwide (I gave evidence for this in the source review). It's not a blog and that it named it the song of the week is no less significant than a good proportion of the reception in this section. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Praise" is used five times in the "Critical reception" section.
  • I think the critical reception prose needs a copyedit because it's choppy and occasionally feels like a set of random short sentences. "Insider's Callie Ahlgrim lauded that "the effect is exquisite"" "Horner found the track inspiring and "brutally, rebelliously stark"." "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine and The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack found it stirring". "At the Reading and Leeds Festivals, the song was followed by "Love It If We Made It". Adam White of The Independent found this continuation to bring "greater potency" to "The 1975".[60]"
  • "Matt Collar of AllMusic reviewed the song as a heartfelt start to the album." This is not an opinion on the song, it's a tone description. Plus, "reviewed [song] as heartfelt" just sounds awkward.

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I've addressed each point in turn. — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work on a song article given the sources you had to work with. I've seen, even in reputable HQ sources, opinions of pop songs getting covered in very simplistic, non-analytical terms, so I understand if the only opinions to present in critical reception of pop songs like this aren't too substantial. I think the prose does the best job it could in presenting that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
    • Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
  • Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
  • This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
    • Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
  • I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
  • For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
  • In the note, the four citations seem like an example of citation overkill and I would recommend bundling the citations to avoid this.
    • I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Giacobbe

[edit]

Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbe talk 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe, I appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tom

[edit]

After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom(T2ME) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I think the article is in great shape now. Congrats! This most definitely deserves the golden star. :) — Tom(T2ME) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is missing from File:The 1975 - The 1975 (2019 song).jpg. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: the current alt text for that image reads, Song cover: horizontal and vertical text reading The 1975 and Notes on a Conditional Form., no? As seen here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • I see nothing from the attributed ref supporting "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning", which sounds like a rather contentious claim.
    • Yep, that's because I'm getting confused between the two main Guardian sources used. It comes from this one: The 1975 have never done a feature before, and have criticised it as a shameless grab for chart positions. Now cited. Went through all the instances of Guardian sources and fixed one more case where I cited the wrong one.
  • "humankind is failing to solve the problem"..... I feel humans are would be a better choice of words
  • Don't try to hide how "Daily" is part of the name for The Daily Telegraph
  • "David T.C. Davies" should have a space between the initials
  • Two reviews alone doesn't seem like much to support the "A number of critics" portion of "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song"
    • This is meant to be a "topic clause", so to speak, so that the four references and quotes following—Gigwise, Elle, Atwood and The Big Issue—are evidence of the statement. There were other reviews which said a similar thing but I didn't want to ref bomb and I don't usually reference the statements which just summarise what is to follow. But if it's confusing, maybe I could add a note at this point with the references, "Critics who found it emotional include ...". — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the "stirring" bit is supposed to mean in this context, but I couldn't find Mitch Mosk here at all, only Malcolm Jack.
    • Just the literal meaning of the word "stirring"—that it brought about strong feelings—as both of the critics used that word. It's just missing the Atwood cite inline (the source is used elsewhere in the article), which I've added. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's looking pretty good, just needs some adjustments to be FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied/fixed these. Let me know if any of them can be improved further. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the "felt emotional" bit, and this is now something I can support for FA following its improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Who is the host of Sound Like A Plan?
  • FN13 is missing author
  • What makes pedestrian.tv a high-quality reliable source? Dork? Consequence of Sound?
    • (1) Pedestrian.tv is used as a primary source interview, and it's a video, so they just need to be reliable enough that we're confident the video hasn't been falsified, tampered with or selectively edited. You can read a bit about the publication in MediaWeek (a trade magazine) and Sydney Morning Herald—it's published by Pedestrian Group, associated with lots of reliable sources in Australia. It's journalists are paid professionals and it has a way to submit corrections. (2) Removed Dork. (3) Consequence of Sound just needs to be significant for opinion, as it's used with attribution under "Reception". It's one of the most significant indie music publications worldwide, and as such is cited very frequently by some of the most widely-distributed music publications: three recent examples from NME, Rolling Stone and the BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn29 has the date in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two fixes and two replies—thanks for your review. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced about that source, but am not opposing over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]
Yes, I had thoughts the first tie you pinged, and they haven't changed since. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (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 May 2021 [44].

2021 Masters (snooker)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the latest Masters championship from January this year. 20 year old Yan Bingtao won the event on his debut appearance. The Masters invites the 16 best snooker players in the world for a single-elimination bracket. I've spent a bit of time on this article, and gone through GAN earlier this year. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Kickstarting this FAC with an assessment of its images:

Might come back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll put something on there (pictured) to show who is who. I don't feel that moving items to the left arbitrarily makes the article easier to read, personally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. On another note, the caption for the Ronnie O'Sullivan picture still is ambiguous since two people are shown within it. You can use "(left)" and "(right)" to distinguish them from one another. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that also says that they should mostly be on the right. As much as having all of the images look at the text, I don't think this is particularly warranted; although happy to discuss. I have fixed the O'Sullivan image Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

I may claim WikiCup points, if I consider my review to be substantial enough. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gog the Mild I'm happy that the article is a suitable length, with an appropriate range of sources, is well-structured, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. I would like a view on the "subsidiary of" issue from others, and have a few more points, none fundamental. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: slight tweaking needed for "organised the tournament and was broadcast by the"
  • Lead: "won the match 10–8 to win" - suggest changing either "won" or "win".
  • Overview: "Barry Hawkins, second reserve also" - I think either "second reserve Barry Hawkins also" or add a comma for "Barry Hawkins, second reserve, also"
  • Overview: (optional) "Initially, the Masters" to ""Initially, the 2021 Masters" as we were mentioning the 1975 event just a paragraph ago.
  • Overview: "organised the event sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" - maybe something like "organised the event which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" just to make it very clear that it was the tournament and not the WPBSA that was sponsored, which I believe is the statement being made.
  • First round - not sure about MOS - should it be "Gary Wilson" and "Kyren Wilson", or "Gary" and "Kyren"?
  • First round: "David Gilbert had been drawn against the world number one, Judd Trump; however, he had been replaced by Joe Perry" - is "Trump had been replaced" better?
  • Final: "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the 2006 Masters." reads to me like he won the 2006 event more than once. Maybe something like "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006."?
  • Final: "At age 20 years, 11 months" doesn't quite read right to me.
  • Century breaks: consider replacing one instance of "made" in "made during the tournament, the highest was a 145 made"
    • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, I have made the suggested changes, all seems like suitable wording changes. My only issue is the Gary/Kyren wording, which I read both ways, as in the MOS I linked says that you should use both "Gary" and "Gary Wilson". Happy to fix up if there is a suitable way to deal with this, but it's a bit more difficult as they aren't related. This would be great to know, as they also played at the World's article I'm working on now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234

[edit]

As promised.

Looks good. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. Willbb234, thanks for the review. You aren't wrong, it's mostly people putting links into the prose and me not catching they have first names as well. I have answered all of the above. I think the only thing I didn't implement is the "bookmaker" suggestion, which if you have alternate wording I'm sure we could deal with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Forthcoming, reserving a spot here. Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I know it's only been three days, just wanted to check this one hadn't slipped your mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry about that. It did indeed slip my mind, since I recently had a midterm, but since I'm done with that now, I can take a look in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Two players, world number one Judd Trump and Jack Lisowski, withdrew from the event after testing positive for COVID-19. - I think COVID-19 could be linked, at least for the future when that isn't as widely known.
Sure, but there is a link just above this for the pandemic in the UK. Happy to add, but I'd rather we linked it the other way around -> COVID-19 -> Pandemic. If we linked COVID below, it's almost as if we had already defined it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't see that. Whoops. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (also referred to as the 2021 Betfred Masters for sponsorship purposes) ... The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. - I suggest moving these closer to each other.
The top bit is WP:LEADALT, we could omit the "due to sponsorship", if you wanted but we should list official names in the lede. Having the sponsor higher in the lede would give it too much WP:WEIGHT in my opinion Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I guess the current wording works in that case.
  • Yan completed a 10–8 victory to win his first Triple Crown tournament. - For some reason, it seems redundant to say "completed a ... victory".
The alternative is Yan won 10-8 to win... Which isn't better. "Completed a victory" is better wording, but if you have anything better let me know. I always assumed it was a WP:LIMITED dealio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm going to leave this alone for now. I would consider something such as "Yan won his first Triple Crown tournament with a 10-8 victory". Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • However, the event was moved to the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, and played without spectators, to comply with stricter regulations against COVID-19 - Out of interest, how long before the actual event was it relocated?
  • As defending champion Bingham was seeded first,[15] with the next seven players in the world rankings seeded and allocated fixed positions in the draw, where they met the remaining eight participants who were drawn randomly.[16] - I think you can just remove "as", because otherwise, the sentence reads like a run-on.
Hm, I was clarifying that because he was defending champion, he was seeded first (which is how it works). It used to be that the world champion would be seeded second, and then the world rankings, but that changed a few years back (O'Sullivan is second in the world, seeded third but is the world champion). I have split this into two sentences to avoid run-on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
That works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company Betfred, who replaced previous sponsors Dafabet - this is definitely a run-on clause, but you can change the semicolon immediately before this (after "organised the event") to a comma.
No problem. Done. I'm not a punctuation wizard I'm afraid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First round

Quarter-finals

  • Murphy won the first two frames before Bingham won the next two with a break of 133 recovering from 0–58 points behind - Not a content issue but that is pretty impressive.
  • Yan Bingtao playing in his first Masters event - Should this be mentioned in the First round section? Or is it more relevant in this section?
  • O'Sullivan won the opening frame with a break of 97, but Higgins responded with a 110 and 145—the highest of the tournament – to lead 3–1 - There is an unspaced m-dash (—) in the beginning and a spaced n-dash ( – ) in the end. It should be consistent.
  • whilst O'Sullivan backed Higgins to win the tournament after this performance - To me, it seems like "whilst" being repeated in consecutive sentences is somewhat awkward. Maybe an alternative like "though" would work

Semi-finals

  • No issues here.

Final

  • Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006.[60] Yan Bingtao was appearing in his first Triple Crown final. - Would this be better as one sentence, or is it more appropriate keeping it as two sentences?
  • since O'Sullivan, twenty-six years earlier, in 1995, - If you write this as "since O'Sullivan in 1995, twenty-six years earlier," you can eliminate the first comma.

@Lee Vilenski: That's it for prose. It looks pretty good to me, and it seems at the level of quality for an FA. On a related note, I was pretty surprised to hear Yan won the Masters at his age, on his debut. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BIG deal! He's unlike the other Chinese players, who are very attacking players, he's much more of a tactician. It looks more and more likely he'll be the first Chinese world champion, but he lost to Murphy at the worlds this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I'm actually interested to see where his career path takes him, since Yan is only a little bit younger than me. I'm happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make sure to keep you up to date. ;). He also won the World Cup (snooker) aged 15! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

That's all I have. Whoever did the GA review did a remarkable job... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - I've got a series of supports, but awaiting a source review. Any issues with opening a fresh nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not until it passes a source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to launch your next one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Passed

[edit]

Reliability of sources and general queries: Sourcing mostly looks good at a high level. A few questions on specific sources:

  • Ref 3 says "World Snooker", while Ref 7 says "World Snooker Tour". Are they the same thing?
    • They... Are. It's confusing, because "World Snooker" is now the "World Snooker Tour", but the tour that they run is also called the "World Snooker Tour". For consistency, we use "World Snooker". I've made the change Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snooker Scene" - does this have an ISSN number and does the issue in question have any volume numbers etc? (I have found 0269-0756 as a potential ISSN)
  • SnookerHQ - are we sure this is a reliable source? The articles look well-written, but from [45] it looks like all of them are written by one individual, and I'm wondering if it's actually a self-published source.
  • "livescores.worldsnookerdata.com" - this site claims to be an official site of World Snooker, but I can't see it linked from their other site wst.tv. In any case, if it's World Snooker then let's mark it as such.
  • livesnooker.com - where does this derive its reliability from?
  • snooker.org - ditto

Otherwise all look good. I'll look at individual formatting and spot checks after we've discussed the above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Spot checks (numbers pertain to this version):[reply]

  • 7 and 8 - check out, although I did have to think a bit to interpret this one, since neither source directly mentions "rankings". I'll take it as inferred that the "seeding cut off point" means the rankings as of that date though.
  • 14 - checks out.
  • 18 - mostly checks out, although the bit about the final being played over two sessions doesn't seem to be there.
  • 26 - all there, other than the specific fact that Wilson was ranked 19 (the source says he was "on the cusp of the top 16")
  • 31 - this is the identical source to 26, so should be merged. Checks out for this fact.
    • The link is the same, the archive is not. The infuriating thing about sports reporting is that they now quite commonly don't change pages to report on things, they usurp their own content. That's why sometimes there are different titles to the ones that are in the article themselves Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39 - checks out.
  • 47 - checks out for sentences a, b and c
  • 54 - checks out.
  • 61 - checks out.
  • 70 - checks out.
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) 13 May 2021 [46].

Armenian Genocide denial

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organized, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate". Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the state of Turkey continues to reject the change of genocide against its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress. Perhaps even more reprehensible than claiming that the events never occurred at all, as is typical of Holocaust deniers, it is often claimed that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the "result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population".

I would like to thank Sturmvogel and Twofingered Typist for reviewing and copyediting the article respectively. (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus

[edit]

I'll take this one on, though I've got quite a bit on my on- and off-wiki plate, so expect a full review by next Sunday. Thank you for working on such an important topic. For an idea of where I'm coming from: I know of the Armenian Genocide but little of its details, and nothing about its denial. Very interested to know more. I'll read up on it after I read this lead, but apologies if I ask strange—or insensitive—questions. Things I'll pay particular attention to include WP:FRINGE information, dispassionate but accurate WP:NPOV, and broad understandability.

(reviewing moved to talk per SandyGeorgia's advice)

Image review
[edit]

I know this is kind of your specialty here at FAC so this might be a sort of image review review on your part ;)

  • Is there a reason the caption quote from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story has weird margins? It feels out of place and more importantly is hard to read.
    • I had a blockquote using {{quote}}. But I restyled it to avoid the margin; let me know if you think that is better.
      • Ohhhhh got it. I think it looks fine now.
  • commons:File:Armenian monastery of s apostles in moush How do we know this is PD in Turkey? (no author date information)
    • It doesn't seem that the photographer is disclosed in the source so it should be PD in Turkey (anonymous publication + 70years). Updated image description accordingly.
      • Epic.
  • commons:File:Trends in official and quasi-official publications on the Armenian question, 1950–2005.jpg is good, definitely below the TOO when compared to, say, these
  • All images freely licensed and with alt text. Corrected a couple typos.
  • One alt text specifically cites "women and children" as the depicted victims, while the article text doesn't. Probably should have them be the same? Ambivalent on whether it's neutral to have it in, leaning towards it being fine, esp. given that it gives an example of the emotional appeal of the book.
    • That was actually incorrect alt text since there's no reliable source for what exactly the image depicts; corrected accordingly.
      • Awesome.

Otherwise looks good. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'll review this in the next day or two, and add some comments. Please ping me if I don't follow up in due course. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see some comments below:
  • I'd suggest adding that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is also known as the Dashnaktsutyun; I'd argue they are more well-known under their Armenian name, or even just as the "Dashnaks".
    • Done
  • "In the meantime, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory in the Balkan Wars..." They also lost Libya in a separate war, which was also a big issue for them, being their last African-controlled territory (Egypt notwithstanding).
    • I'm aware of this but most books I've read on the Armenian Genocide barely mention Libya if at all, while focusing on the Balkan Wars as an important precipitating event. I just checked two of them (They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else and Denial of Violence); the former only mentions Libya once while spending several pages on the Balkan Wars, the latter does not mention Libya at all but does extensively cover the Balkan Wars. I believe this is because 1) many/most CUP leaders came from the Balkans and 2) there was a large number of atrocities committed against Balkan Muslims and consequently inflow of refugees to Anatolia; I have not heard about a large number of Ottoman civilians forced to leave Libya.
Fair enough, works for me then.
  • "Armenian soldiers and officers were removed from their posts pursuant to a 25 February order." Was this a political or military order? I think it would be prudent to clarify, and if I'm recalling correctly, it did stem from the government.
    • The order was issued by Enver, added to article.
  • The photo from the book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements says the photo is "claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims"; was this claim true, or is it a distortion?
    • It's not clear. Most sources cite this book as a work of government propaganda and genocide denial, i.e. not a reliable source. But, it is true that some atrocities were committed by Armenians against Muslims and it is possible that this photograph indeed depicts what it claims to. I can't access the page in Dündar right now but IIRC he does not address the question of whether the photographs are genuine.
Thanks for checking. Best to leave it then; ideally there would be some clarity, but can only work with what we have.
  • "Following the genocide, many survivors sought an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia..." I wonder if it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sevres called for such a state, and that the Turkish War of Independence put an end to that. What do you think?
    • Added
  • "Denial was consolidated during the early republican era." This sentence leaves me wondering what else was done, and really I think it would serve better to be moved to become the first sentence of the next section (ie. starting the "Causes" section that goes on to describe early republican activities. If so, I think the quote by Zurcher could be moved there too, but I'm not sure the best place yet; I'll wait for your reply and look at it some more.
    • As far as I can tell there was not active denial apart from strict censorship (briefly mentioned in "Destruction and concealment of evidence") done right in the 1920s as the issue appeared to vanish and only reappeared in 1965. Neither of the two sources cited give details.
  • Is "Behramzade Nusret" the correct name order? As far as I know Nusret is a given name and Behramzade looks like a Persian/Azerbaijani surname. I'm not familiar with the individual so could be off, but it just caught my eye.
    • Yes, this is confirmed by Judgment at Istanbul page 195. Before the surname law most Turkish Muslims did not have a surname, so this individual probably had two given names, Behramzade and Nusret.
Good, thanks for checking.
  • "On 11 January 1916, socialist deputy Karl Liebknecht the Armenian Genocide in the Reichstag..." Liebkhnecht did what? It looks like a verb is missing.
    • Fixed
  • Also regarding Germany during the genocide itself: Hovhannisian has noted elsewhere (in his 1969 Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918) that by 1918 the Germans were getting annoyed with continued Ottoman massacres of Christians, and the public's reaction to these reports, and that it was a factor in Germany's intervention in the Caucasus in May 1918. He doesn't explicitly mention the Armenians and so I don't know how relevant it is here, but it could be further show the shifting perspective in Germany between 1916 and 1921.
Like I said it was really more an off-hand remark in his book and not really expanded on, so not anything pressing here. Just thought I'd mention it anyways.
  • Further on the German side of things, I wonder if it's worth noting the high number of people in Germany with Turkish heritage here; I get it strays from the overall message, and there is a related article already linked, but I'm curious if there's anything on how that impacted the German decision to recognize the genocide.
    • Added
  • Regarding the US: "Each year, the president issues a commemorative message on 24 April." Is there a date that started?
    • It appears that this has been going on at least since 1994:[47]. Added to article
  • Also, there is a mention of Turkey allowing use of air bases, but I also think noting the NATO connection here is worth doing; it is arguably a major reason why the US has not officially recognized the genocide.
    • Added
  • ICTY should be spelled out.
    • Done
  • The Khojaly massacre is noted, and I wonder if it would be worth mentioning here that Azerbaijan considers it a genocide, which is arguably in response to the Armenian genocide. Not an important detail, but it does show an effort to downplay things.
    • It did say that in the previous version, but I have expanded on it a bit to make it more clear
  • I didn't see any mention of Hrant Dink in the article. His death was a major event and gave widespread coverage of both the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denial of it (and has it's own article: Assassination of Hrant Dink). I'd encourage trying to find a way to mention him in there, as that was a key event in this story.
    • Added
  • A look through the sources shows that the major scholars on the topic are included, both on the Armenian and Turkish side, which is good to see. Aside from Hrant Dink (noted above) I don't see anyone major missing.
  • This is obviously a contentious article, and one that attracts a lot of attention. As it is something I'm quite familiar with and have studied, I focused on the content rather than the writing, which I'll leave to better-qualified individuals. I found it to be well-done and given the type of coverage a topic like this deserves, and look forward to seeing it promoted. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'm happy to add my support to a well-done article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MaranoFan

[edit]
  • Linking civil war on its first usage might be helpful to some readers.
    • Done
  • "By the 1890s, Armenians faced forced conversions" -- Was this conversion to Islam? This could be mentioned more explicitly.
    • Done
  • Shouldn't the caption for the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story image demonstrate what is happening in it more clearly?
    • OK, I have swapped the caption.
  • "The Ottoman government replied, denying that massacres of Armenians had occurred, claiming that Armenians colluded with the enemy, alleging Armenian massacres of Muslims,[56] arguing that national sovereignty justified Ottoman policies towards Armenians,[56] and making counter-accusations of Allied war crimes." -- This sentence could benefit from being split.
    • Done
  • Is the full form of ASİMKK available?
    • Yes, it's Asılsız Soykırım İddiaları ile Mücadele Koordinasyon Kurulu. Added to the link.
The article is very informative and appears to be well-researched. I will be glad to support once these are addressed.--NØ 12:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to these soon, buidhe?--NØ 06:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and the ping. I must have too many things on my watchlist, I managed to miss your comment earlier. (t · c) buidhe 12:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got the time to read the remaining sections. Here are the comments:
  • "One factor in explaining denial is Sèvres Syndrome, a narrative that portrays Turkey as besieged by implacable enemies" -- "Narrative" is too ambiguous, would it be fine to describe it as a "popular belief" like the article does instead?
    • Done
  • "Acknowledgement of the genocide is perceived as a threat to Turkey's national security" -- by whom, civilians, scholars or the government?
    • The last one, clarified
  • Taner Akçam is linked and introduced in the Causes section, then only referred to by last name in Destruction and concealment of evidence, then referred to by full name again in Turkish historiography. I would suggest being consistent.
    • Done
  • Two people named Kemal are included in the article, Mustafa and Mehmet, so it is a bit unclear which one is being referred to in the Turkish historiography section. Also, is there a reason "Atatürk" is being omitted from the former's name here?
    • I added the forename to the reference in Turkish historiography section. "Ataturk" was not his name until 1934, after the events described in this article.
  • "Most recently, textbooks have accused Armenians of perpetrating genocide against Turkish Muslims" -- More specificity would be better. Maybe "Early-mid 2010s textbooks"?
    • Added date
  • "In a 1995 civil proceeding brought by three Armenian Genocide survivors, a French court censured his remarks" -- Mention that they were "Lewis's remarks" here, I generally think it is best to not use "he/his" two sentences in a row. You could opt for "he" in the sentence after this one instead.
    • Done
I stand by my assessment that the article is very informative. I will note that I don't have access to any of the print media used, so I will leave the verification of that to the source reviewer. I do have an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All About That Bass/archive2 which is also a pretty lengthy article, in case you feel interested to offer any feedback there. Thanks.--NØ 06:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your review! (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why several works listed in "Citations" are not in "References"?
    • I put the full citation in citations if I only used the source once, in references if I needed more than one page. I believe that's the way Jo-Jo Eumerus does it.
This doesn't answer the question: your first sentence says what you do; your second notes that another editor also does it. My question is why do you do it? (And referencing Jo-Jo doesn't help your case, I once source reviewed one of their FACs!)
I think it works best with the number of direct quotes required. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly in my personal opinion the splitting of works into three sections and then not even including some could be designed to make life difficult for a reader wishing to confirm a claim. It certainly did for me. However, the FAC criteria give a lot of leeway in this respect, so I will leave it at my personal preference.
  • There are some p./pp. errors. Eg cites 123, 125.
    • Fixed
  • Add the ISSN to Della Morte.
    • Done
  • And the DOI to Belavusau (2015).
    • Done
  • Why is Asbarez.com high quality?
    • This is an interview with Taner Akçam used for claims that he made.
Why does what you are using the source for excuse you from the FAC criterion "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"?
I would argue that Akçam is a high quality source as he is probably the single most well known and well regarded historian of the Armenian Genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this addresses the point. By that logic if Akcam were quoted in a blacklisted periodical notorious for fabricating quotes it would somehow become high quality. However, given who the interviewer is and that he is reporting on a public lecture, I think that we can accept that in this particular case the source is high quality.
  • Add the ISSN to Charny.
    • Done
  • Why is CivilNet high quality?
    • Also an interview Akçam, not used for any extraordinary claims.
The criterion in question does not allow for low quality RSs if the claims are not "extraordinary". (I am not claiming that Akcam CivilNet is low quality, just explaining that it seems - to me - straight forward that the criteria require all sources to be "high-quality".)
Civilnet.am is a well-respected Armenian news outlet and is cited in various academic papers such as [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] so I don't think it makes things up.
Fair enough.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- looking good but for a subject such as this I'd like to see another comprehensive review if possible, Gog how would you feel about doing that on top of your source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog and TRM, I'll take another look at this soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the main argument is that "There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. Denial is usually accompanied by "rhetoric of Armenian treachery, aggression, criminality, and territorial ambition". The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original, one of hte few parts of the MoS emphasised.
    • OK, both of these are attributed in the main text. I would say the second one isn't an opinion, but a factual description of denial discourse. I can attribute the first one in the lead if necessary.
If a quotation is an opinion, the MoS requires in line attribution, no matter where in the text it is.
Done
  • "One of the most important reasons for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state; recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths." It is not clear how, if at all the two parts are linked, possibly explain this instead of the semi colon?
    • I separated into two sentences. I am not sure how to explain concisely in the lead, but in effect "Turkey's founding myths" include claims such as: "The foundation of Turkey did not involve genocide".
  • "in foreign countries". This reads a little oddly to me. There is some other sort?
    • Changed to "other countries" if you think it reads better. Sources distinguish Turkey's efforts with regard to other countries to its domestic policy.
  • "and launched another coup in 1913." I don't see mention of an earlier coup (or coups). If they were in power, why did they need to launch a coup?
    • The Young Turk Revolution was also a military coup, and there was also the anti-CUP 1912 Ottoman coup d'état which installed an opposing party in power. Anyway I reworded for clarity.
  • "the Young Turks blamed"< Who were the Young Turks?
    • Reword for greater precision
  • "During the Ottoman invasion of Russian and Persian territory". When did this happen?
    • Add time frame
  • "following the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Sarikamish". The defeat of whom by whom?
    • Added
  • "isolated indications of Armenian resistance". Suggest "indications" → 'incidents'.
    • Done
  • " According to historian Ronald Grigor Suny, deportations of Armenians". This mention of deportations seems to spring from nowhere. Could it be introduced and any background to it given. When did they start, how common were they, from where to where, how humanely, were other groups deported.?
    • This paragraph is trying to explain why and how the deportations/genocide began. Details on how this was executed are given in the next paragraph. I have reworded a bit.
  • "Armenians barricaded themselves in Van". Perhaps, 'the eastern-Turkish city of Van'?
    • Well, it wasn't part of Turkey until 1923. But maybe it would be helpful to put a map (such as this one) to help the reader understand the geography?
Good point. And yes, I think that would be very helpful.
Added
  • "The leaders of the CUP, especially Talat Pasha ... ordered the deportation." I am confused. Either "The leaders" ordered the "deportation[s]" or Talat Pasha did. How can one of a group "especially" order something? Maybe "especially" → 'including'? And who was Talat Pasha?
Thanks for the introduction. "especially really doesn't work. I understand - in general terms - Talat's role in driving the deportations, but there must be plenty of other ways to express your point. "The leaders of the CUP ordered the deportations, with interior minister Talat Pasha, who knew he was sending the Armenians to their deaths, taking a leading role" for example?
OK, reworded according to the suggestion.
    • Most historians of the Holocaust agree that Hitler was the central figure in ordering the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that Himmler, Heydrich et al. did not participate in ordering it. Likewise, Talat is seen as the central figure in ordering the Armenian Genocide but other CUP leaders both in the central government and regional governors (sometimes even exceeding his orders) also were responsible for this decision. Clarified that he was the interior minister.
  • "of which 800,000 to 1.2 million were deported". Should that be "which" → 'whom'?
    • Done
  • "Russian and Armenian forces". What Armenian forces were these?
    • The previously mentioned Armenian volunteers in the Russian army.
Then they weren't Armenian forces, they were Russian forces. A natural reading of the current text would be that forces of the (not yet extant) Armenian state were operating alongside those of Russia.
It's a bit more complicated than that since a lot of the atrocities were committed after the Russian withdrawal following the Russian revolution, not necessarily by the Armenian state but various irregular groups of Armenians that had formerly been part of the Allied forces.
  • Caption: "In the 1916 book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements, many photographs claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims, such as this one, were published." "claimed" → 'claiming'.
    • My reading is that the photographs don't "claim" anything, but the authors of the book claim that the photographs represent something.
Ah. OK. I missed that.
  • "producing a text that undermines reality with half-truths"> I am having to guess what this means. It seems a rhetorical flourish. Perhaps leave it out, or replace with something more encyclopedic?
  • "Turkish sociologist Fatma Müge Göçek identifies three subtypes of denial: silence, secrecy, and subversion". As you don't develop or explain this, I am not sure what its function is, at least at this point in the article.
    • Removed if you don't think this is helpful
  • "which was perpetrated under the guise of resettlement." Should this not be in the previous section, with deportations?
    • I think that it's more relevant here because it explains the origins of denial.
  • "Denial emerged because of the Ottoman desire to maintain American neutrality in the war (until 1917)". For readers unaware that the US entered WWI in 1917 this is confusing. And I am not sure what "(until 1917)" adds. Consider removing it.
    • Removed
  • "sent a diplomatic communiqué to the Sublime Porte". What is a "Sublime Porte"?
    • Reduced jargon
  • "Continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey was significant" is ambiguous. Perhaps 'There was sicnificent continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey'? Assuming that is the interpretation you intend.
    • Reworded
  • "Rouben Paul Adalian has argued that "Mustafa Kemal completed". And Mustafa Kemal would be?
    • Clarified
  • "The rump Ottoman state in Constantinople"? Perhaps 'The rump Ottoman state held courts-martial in Constantinople'?
    • Done
  • "Although the reality of state-sponsored mass killing was not denied, many circles of society considered it necessary and justified." Given the second half of the sentence, why does it start "Although"?
    • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "their families were rewarded by the state using confiscated Armenian properties." Optional: "using" → 'with'.
    • Done
  • "and national security establishment as a threat to Turkey's national security". Is it possible to avoid using "national security" twice in one clause? (It may not be.)
    • I removed the mention of national security establishment as it has close ties to the state and is already implied.
  • "Mass graves of genocide victims have also been destroyed". Is "destroyed" the best word? I mean, how does one destroy a mass grave?
    • In a variety of ways. The cited source discusses graves being "destroyed by the Turkish army and gendarme forces", but there are also ones that are destroyed in other ways such as being flooded by a dam[54] or gradually by farming over them due to lack of legal protection.
OK. Optional: Consider mentioning one or two of these to give a reader an idea of what this meant in practice.
  • "and represented the bridge between wartime denial and the "official narrative" on the genocide developed in the 1980s." Picky point: I think you can have 'represented a bridge' or 'was a bridge', but not "represented the bridge".
    • Reworded
  • "following Armenian efforts for recognition". Recognition of what?
    • Clarified
  • has been instrumental in cementing "an alternative, 'national' scholarship with its own reference system". The quote needs in line attribution.
    • Done
  • "the Kemalist official producer of nationalist historical narratives" - likewise.
    • Reworded
  • "private universities began to be established". In Turkey?
    • Clarified
  • "the conference was cancelled ... but eventually held". That doesn't sound like "cancelled". Maybe something like "... but rearranged and eventually held... "?
    • Reworded
  • "The conference represented the first major public challenge to Turkey's founding myths". At all, anywhere, or just within Turkey?
    • Reworded
  • "by elite academics". PoV?
    • I initially had this as "select intellectuals" but changed because Ovinus thought this wording is better (see the FAC's talk page). It refers to a relatively small group of academics at the top ranked universities in the country.
OK. I don't personally like it, but I see the dilemma.
  • "allege that the Armenians themselves committed treason or presented a threat." Delete "themselves". (Who else would they be?)
    • Done
  • "Turkish–Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was outspoken in his advocacy for facing historical truths to achieve a better society and reconciliation between ethnic groups. He was prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" and was assassinated in 2007 by a Turkish ultranationalist." This would fit better towards the end of the following paragraph.
    • moved
This is as far as I have reviewed your responses. I hope to wrap up tomorrow. Various comments from me above. If I have not commented you can assume that I am content with your response and/or explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations
[edit]
  • "Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets it apart from other genocides in history." What "it" refers to is ambiguous. Perhaps something like 'Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets it apart from other genocide perpetrators in history.' or 'Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets this genocide apart from others in history.'?
    • Done
  • "and membership in NATO." "in" → 'of'?
    • Done
  • "foreign ministry established a dedicated office (İAGM)". In full at first mention?
    • The institution was called İstihbarat ve Araştırma Genel Müdürlüğü ("Directorate General of Intelligence and Research" in English) neither of which seems any more informative than the acronym.
Ho hum. OK, let's IAR.
  • "the foreign ministry established a dedicated office (İAGM) specifically to promote Turkey's view of the "Armenian question".[189] In 2001, a further centralization created the Committee to Coordinate the Struggle with the Baseless Genocide Claims (ASİMKK). The Institute for Armenian Research, a think tank which focuses exclusively on the Armenian issue, was created in 2001". Why the scare quotes around "Armenian question" and not "Armenian issue". (There are other instances.)
    • Ok, I have reworded to reduce the use of euphemistic language and therefore the call for quotation marks. In other cases "Armenian question" is in quote marks to distinguish use of the phrase to mean "Armenian Genocide" from the Armenian Question, and this formulation is only used when rewording to Armenian Genocide wouldn't work.
  • "ASİMKK disappeared"! 'was disbanded' or similar maybe?
    • Done
  • "Turkish Jewish leaders helped defeat resolutions recognizing the genocide". Resolutions by whom?
    • The supporting paragraph states "The Turkish Jewish community leadership, especially Jak Kamhi and Bensiyon Pinto, regularly boasts that it has acted as a special interest group working hand in hand with Turkish presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers successfully lobbying foreign Jews to influence their governments to side with Turkey by defeating resolutions to recognize the Armenian genocide..." In the chapter focusing on this issue, various cases are mentioned, most prominently US but also European Parliament.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but argued against formal recognition to prioritize relations with Turkey". Maybe something like 'in order to maintain dood relations with'?
    • Done
  • "Publications from this point of view"; perhaps 'Publications with this point of view'?
    • To me "from" sounds more natural because you look at a building from a certain point of view, not with a certain POV.
I struggle to read it like that even now you have explained it, bur shall assume that that is just personal differences.
  • "from the CUP to the Armenians themselves". Suggest deleting "themselves".
    • Removed
  • "attribute collective guilt of all Armenians". "of" → 'to'?
    • Done
  • "300,000 or even less". "less" → 'fewer'; is "even" necessary?
    • Done
  • "The deportation of the Armenians of Smyrna and Constantinople was planned by the CUP but only partially carried out because of German pressure." This seems a bit randomly tacked on. How does it relate to the previous sentences?
    • Reworded to clarify its relevance
  • "During a visit to Sudan in 2006, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denied there had been a Darfur genocide because "a Muslim cannot commit genocide"" Why is this under "Exaggerated claims of Ottoman and Turkish benevolence towards Jews."?
    • Reorganized this bullet point
  • "Denial of the genocide has had profound effects on Turkish society." You open a section with this statement, as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, but then don't give ant examples of such effects. The statement doesn't seem, to me, to fit comfortably with the rest of the section.
    • Removed and reorganized the paragraph
  • Link Armenian diaspora and Turkish diaspora.
    • Done
  • I have very grave doubts about the use of quotes in this article. I am not convinced, at first glance, that 91 separate quotes is compatible with the policy "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ..." I accept that many are trivial, or arguably not "quotations" in the sense meant by the MOS, but still.
    • Hmm. Well, if there's any specific places you think they can be paraphrased I can work on that, but given that this is an article about an opinion it's going to need more quotations than articles about factual events. I've done my best to keep quotations as short as possible. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I shall start working through your responses shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses reviewed and a couple commented on. Bar the quotations. Let me read through and see if any jump out for paraphrasing. And yes, I appreciate the relative brevity of most of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations
[edit]
  • I think that after the first mention in the main text - where it is linked - there is no need to put quote marks around "insulting Turkishness" on subsequent mentions.
    • Done

On a relatively swift skim, I think that the following could and should be paraphrased. I think that several would be improved, in context, by paraphrasing.

  • "rapidly radicalized monstrously into an opportunity to rid Anatolia once and for all of those peoples perceived to be an imminent existential threat to the future of the empire"
    • Removed
  • "denial, trivialization, or relativization of major war crimes played a central role"
    • Done
  • "Whatever has befallen the non-Muslim elements living in our country, is the result of the policies of separatism they pursued in a savage manner, when they allowed themselves to be made tools of foreign intrigues and abused their privileges."
  • "a serious attempt to distance the republic from the genocide could have destabilized the ruling coalition on which the state depended for its stability"
    • Done
  • "the single most important reason for this inability to accept culpability is the centrality of the Armenian massacres for the formation of the Turkish nation-state".
  • "be tantamount to casting doubt on the credibility of the foundational axioms of Kemalism and the Turkish nation-state"
    • Done
  • "one of the strategies of the successive Turkish governments' denialist policy was based on the concealment or destruction of original historic documents".
    • Removed
  • "thinking about Armenians as a fifth column continues to dominate Turkish popular national consciousness"
    • Done
  • "the Porte has been forced, due to the seditious machinations of our enemies, to transfer the Armenian population of certain areas, and to assign them new places of residence"
  • "that the book would never be made into a play or a movie because the Turkish people are particularly sensitive to this period of their history and are trying desperately to cover it up"
    • Removed
  • "the single most important factor in successfully concluding the process of normalization between Israel and Turkey"
    • Done
  • "hardly demonstrate the existence of a genuine academic dispute"
    • Done
  • "Almost all are citizens of the Turkish state or have lived and served in the Turkish Republic. The Turkish authors are all past or present officials of the Turkish foreign ministry."
    • Done
  • "part of the project of fraudulently minimizing the number of Armenians who had ever lived in the Ottoman empire, undermining Armenian claims for autonomy or independence"
    • Done
  • "the only source of reliable evidence on the topic is [deemed to be] the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archive in Istanbul"
    • Done
  • "led to a series of other policies that perpetuated the process by liquidating their properties, silencing and marginalising the survivors, and normalising all forms of violence against them"

I feel that the quotes could be removed from:

  • "extermination"
  • "oppressed nation"
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I have ditched most of these quotes. However, I'd like to keep the quotations from primary sources as I think the wording is significant enough. I'll have to think about the other three two quotes since I'm having trouble coming up with an adequate paraphrase. (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Also I went through and paraphrased some other quotes that you didn't mention here. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all looks good to me. I tried to leave those quotes where I could see that using the original phrasing might add something for a reader. Obviously there are judgement calls on this at the margin. You have done a good job of sorting these out and I am now happy to support. Can I leave you with the thought that "receiving the reply that "the Porte has been forced ..." is not going to mean a lot to most readers. Perhaps 'receiving the reply that the Ottoman government "has been forced ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • Some aspects of the lead are inline linked, some are not. I understand the need to do that with quotes, but why selectively otherwise?
    • What in the lead do you think should be linked?
  • "The Ottoman Empire effectively treated Armenians..." this should be attributed.
    • This is not disputed so attributing this to a specific historian would be make it seem that it is disputed, in the same way that "According to Suny, the 1915 deportation of Armenians constituted a genocide" would be inappropriate to write.
  • Our article on Hamidian massacres has from 100,000[3] to 300,000,[4] as its range of estimated deaths (although, 200,000 to 400,000 in the infobox there). The text here says "almost 200,000". Is the source used here much more precise and definitive than the others?
    • You're right, figures vary. Changed to "at least 100,000" which is supported by Suny
  • "coups in 1908[20] and in 1913.[21]" I would comma after coups and move [20] to the end of the sentence as it looks very awkward.
    • Combined
  • "blamed Christian treachery" in what sense?
    • The Balkan nations fighting the Ottoman Empire were all Christian (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc.) However, Ottomans ended up blaming Christians in general including Ottoman Greeks and Armenians who did not fight against the empire.
  • I would link Russia to Russian Empire or spell it out.
    • Done
  • Could the map image have a caption giving a summary of what it's showing? Is there alt text for this (and the others)?
    • Added
  • "genocide.[58][52]" order.
  • "foundation of the Turkish republic" - could you link History of the Republic of Turkey?
    • This article has serious POV issues and does not cover at all the role of genocide in foundation of Turkey.
  • "rump Ottoman state" I don't know what that means.
  • the architect of the genocide" is this standard, or should he be considered "an" architect of the genocide, per him being one of "Many of the main perpetrators"?
  • "1918 armistice" link.
    • Done
  • "officially opened in ... were opened" repetitive.
    • Reworded somewhat
  • Istiklal Avenue -> İstiklal Avenue
    • Done
  • "and Alevis.[153][55][154]" order.
  • ""to be a fifth column" what does that mean?
    • Fifth column, a subversive group that undermines the state from within
  • ""supporters... was" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done
  • "Treaty of Sevrès " wrong accent and already linked.
    • fixed
  • "A Tribute for Talat Pasha.." the clipping says Talaat (which is what our article calls him too). That caption is a fragment so no full stop.
    • OK, will spell with two "aa" since it's a direct quote, but the spelling with one "a" has become more common in English.
  • Could link Israel–Turkey relations
    • Done
  • "freedom.[256][254][251]" order.
  • "the perpetrators of the Holocaust.[323][204]" overlinked, and order.
  • Monument to Humanity our article calls it Statue of Humanity.
    • The former name is more common in RS, RM filed.
  • "period.[334][335][331] Following" order.

What an excellent article on such a vital topic. Thank you for putting in so much work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent seminal piece of work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:22, 11 May 2021 (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) 11 May 2021 [55].

John Richard Clark Hall

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Clark Hall was a barrister who once wrote an article on the recent effects of sanitary legislation. Thankfully, however, that's not why we're here. For when he wasn't doing whatever it is that the principal clerk of the Local Government Board does, Hall, apparently as a project of passion, became one of the preeminent Old English scholars of his time. His translation of Beowulf spent more than five decades as the standard introduction to this epic poem, and his A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary remains in print more than a century after its initial publication.

While every student of classics at Oxford may once have been familiar with what was simply called "Clark Hall", its namesake remains far less known. This article's main accomplishment is in finding the sources that tie together Hall the barrister, with Hall the scholar, with even the Hall who, in a third act shortly before his death, took to a Christian theme, with tracts such as Birth Control and Self-Control—as enlightening, no doubt, as his treatise on sanitary legislation. This article was given a thorough review by Chiswick Chap last year; since then, I've polished the article further, and tracked down some of Hall's more obscure works. There is little more to be said about Hall that is not already said here, which is why I am now nominating it to be a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New English Dictionary Comments

  • "Other work on Beowulf included a metrical translation in 1912" - text says 1914, which is correct?
  • "Even after Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's in 1898, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary continued to serve prominently as an introductory resource" is cited to an 1898 source, which seems too early to draw that conclusion
  • "Tingle's father, an accountant, was in Drammen (before the rest of the family arrived) during the great fire in 1866, and published an article about it, "A Town in Ashes", in All the Year Round." What is the relevance of this here?
  • "A Town in Ashes" isn't attributed to Tingle in All the Year Round, so I was trying to find a place (that's not an obscure, century-old and out-of-print book held by only seven libraries) to attach his name to it. But you're right, it's a stretch here. I moved it to Drammen. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Hall spent parts of his childhood (perhaps weekends)" - is the weekends bit in the source, or is this speculation?
  • The first page of the source (visible here) says that "I first made [Herbert Tingle's] acquaintance ... when his family came to live in the road in which mine were then residing, on the outskirts of Peckham. ... The road has long since lost its mild air of suburban gentility, and the houses it contains have become 'weekly property'." This suggests, without stating definitively, that Hall's house was "weekend property," so to speak. It's a borderline case though, and I can take it out if you think it's too close to speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An uncle, Joseph Hall, lived in Golcar Hill." Significance?
  • "Hall's obituary termed him a "protestant reformer"" - this need not appear twice

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, just touching base to see if you have further comments, or would be interested in weighing in on the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
  • This has been nominated for over three weeks and has yet to attract much interest. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support fromComments by Chiswick Chap

[edit]

I reviewed this article to GA in June 2020. Since then the citations have been tidied, and some detail has been added, mainly on his early life; having written Translating Beowulf, I added a mention and example of that topic. A few small corrections have been made. I have accordingly not much to add to the earlier review, and I think it a fine article deserving of FA status. However, the following little details may be worth a moment's attention.

  • The article should, given Clark Hall's nationality and his work on Old English, be in British English (and the appropriate invisible tag be added at the top of the article). This will make little immediate difference as the article is mostly in that form of English already, but I notice that "as Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" would be "as the Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" in BE; and "spelled" would be "spelt".
  • "essay on "the duty of kindness to animals," " – should the essay title not be capitalised?
  • "studied Roman law and constitutional law and legal history." – suggest "studied Roman law, constitutional law, and legal history." (unless this is using the Oxford comma, in which case omit the second one).
  • The way I understand it is that "Roman law" is one subject, and "constitutional law and legal history" is a second subject. Indeed, the source puts Hall's studies under the umbrella of "Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal History". Meanwhile, other students were placed under the umbrella of "Constitutional Law and Legal History". Perhaps it would be clearer if phrased studied both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "takers of an exam" – suggest "candidates".
  • "This was itself reprinted" doesn't need "itself".
  • "The Contemporary Review, called it" contains a stray comma.
  • "advocating for the "parochial comprehensiveness" of the church" – on reflection, I've no idea what this might mean (nor why "for" is needed). Perhaps a word of explanation is called for here, in which case the already rather long sentence should be split up.
  • "wondered much how it reached there." should I think be "wondered much how it had reached there."
  • Do we need to know the name of the rector at Hall's wedding?
  • Similarly, "he left a £16,762 estate." should be "he had left a £16,762 estate."
  • The multiple editions of his Dictionary and of his Beowulf are formatted with the author's name masked for second and subsequent appearances. However those use a bullet as well as a long dash; I'd suggest to suppress the (indented) bullets so we have bullet points only where "Hall" is printed.

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Looks interesting. Here's what strikes me:

  • I might split the long second sentence of the lead that is now joined by a semicolon.
  • Done.
  • Why is the book by Hall bolded? Is there a MOS reason for it?
  • "along with a senior certificate from the latter, earning him the title Associate in Arts at Oxford.[4][5][18][19]" This is, I assume, Oxford University?
  • "St. Olave's ... Mr. R.B. Allen ... Ph.D. ... Mr. Braginton" Just making sure that since this is in British English, that the dots after St, Mr, etc are intended and proper. I note later you have both Dr. Clark Hall and Dr Clark Hall. I understand those are quotations, but is that the sort of thing we are allowed to tidy up?
  • Those are true to the sources, except for "Ph.D.", which I have now changed to "PhD". Meanwhile, only the Dr./Dr Clark Hall are parts of quotations; I'd be happy to remove the other periods if you think that's better for British English.
Possibly other commenters will weigh in. I'm not certain if usage has changed over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the reference strings are out of numerical order, such as ".[45][2]". Is this intended?
  • Reordered.

That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • The lead seems a little short for an article of this length. The "Christianity" subsection doesn't appear to be summarised there at all.
  • Good point: expanded. I hadn't included it because Hall certainly isn't notable for it—those three works are quite obscure and hard to find—but given that it has its own section in the article, it should be in the lead also.
  • A link to Beowulf in the lead would seem appropriate.
  • Done. Looks like there used to be one, but it got taken out with a trim here.
  • Seven explanatory notes in just over 2,00 words seems excessive. Are they all necessary? Note 1 doesn't seem to have anything to do with Hall; the first half of Note 2 fell irrelevant, and the second half should be in the prose if it's important; not sure what Note 3 has to do directly with Hall; Note 4 seems like trivia; Note 5 should be in the prose so we're not burying criticism; Note 6 should be in the prose; Note 7 should be shortened and incorporated into the prose.
  • (Old version with numbering convention referred to above.) Taking these in turn:
1) Can't argue with you, and I've deleted it (see review above re: A Town in Ashes for how that footnote came to be).
2) There's a link between "the duty of kindness to animals" and the humorous "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Insects".
3) This is about the photo caption, which refers to "Folio 158r"; it is to clarify that "Folio 158r" is so-numbered under one convention, but has a different numbering under a previous convention. The footnote is modelled after that in the featured article Gevninge helmet fragment. Incidentally, Hall published a note on four lines which appear on this folio, which is why it's the folio shown here.
4) This is intended not as trivia, but to place a clarification somewhere so that the two John Hall's don't get confused.
5) Done.
6) I think this is pure footnote material. The privately published pamphlet is very likely to essentially be a short draft of the book published the next year.
7) This actually started off in the text, and was then expanded and put in a footnote (see review above noting "parochial comprehensiveness"). I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't want to elevate a one-paragraph letter to the editor above a 170-page book; such a letter is truly a footnote compared to such a book. On the other hand, it offers some useful tidbits into Hall's thinking on the subject.
  • "railways and parliamentary elections... You need a ref straight after a quote.
  • There's a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • "the duty of kindness to animals," punctuation outside quote marks per MOS:LQ. Check for others.
  • Done, and removed one other. The others are only where full sentences are quoted.
  • "At last", wrote The Guardian The grauniad was known as the Manchester Guardian until 1959. I see you refer to it as such below and link it there. The link should be on the first mention.
  • This is actually a regional paper called The Guardian, which was published at the same time as The Manchester Guardian. Presumably it stopped publication—and thus freed up the name—before The Manchester Guardian changed it's name to The Guardian. As noted in the good-article nomination, I've done some digging on the regional paper without finding out much more information.
  • My general rule of thumb is to introduce those who don't have Wikipedia articles, but not for those who do. Having an articles 1) implies relevance, and 2) gives an easy way to figure out who the person is, making the introduction less needed.
  • according to Marijane Osborn;[68] a 2011 survey Suggest replacing the semicolon with a full stop. There doesn't seem to be a direct relationship between the two facts.
  • Done.
  • suggested that "[i]n attempting No need for square brackets if you're just changing the capitalisation of the first letter and other superficial changes.
  • Looking at The Chicago Manual of Style on this point, it says that it is "generally permissible" to silently change capitalization as so (§ 13.7), but that "[i]n some legal writing, close textual analysis or commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets" (§ 13.21). To be fair, Wikipedia is probably a field closer to the former than the latter. Personally, however, I dislike unremarked changes and would never use them. As a compromise here, I've changed it to suggested that by "attempting...
  • Ditto [a]ny way we are glad.
  • Here, I think the alteration—which effectively combines two sentences—is significant enough that it needs the signal which the brackets provide.
  • I haven't looked at the sources in the detail needed for a full source review, but I'm concerned that the personal life section seems to be based entirely on primary sources.
  • Although four primary sources are cited, they almost exclusively sit under secondary sources in that section. For example, the information about Hall's marriage comes from this newspaper article; his death and probate information was published in The Scotsman; his son Cecil Hall's information is backed up by three secondary sources (most expressly by this book); and his son Wilfrid Hall's information is courtesy of Who Was Who. The main point of the primary sources is that they substantiate the secondary sources, and provide more information for anyone who wants to click over.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, thanks for the review! Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

[edit]
  • "called to the bar" this is jargon so needs linking/explanation.
  • "became a standard" what does that mean, I know about Jazz standard for example, is this the same?
  • trot to Beowulf", the quote mark here crashes into the italic text of Beowulf.
  • "Other work on Beowulf included.." reiterate "Hall's other work" here as the last person's work you described was Tolkein.
  • As long as those quotes appear in the main body, you don't need to include references in the lead.
  • " in 1855,[3] He was" should be a full stop.
  • From the infobox, it says "England" as place of birth so that needs to be here too.
  • Do we all know what a "principal clerk" is? I recall Clerks being about people working on checkouts...
  • "in Golcar Hill" we don't normally part-link formal titles.
  • "found their way into the collections" anthropomorphising these pamphlets, perhaps just "were included".
  • ""the Corning Museum of Glass" context perhaps, i.e. in New York.
  • "Collegiate School in Peckham, and" Peckham is overlinked.
  • " St. Olave's Grammar School" no full stop in St.
  • It may have been brought up before, but "clerkships.[5][6][22][23] " are four citations required for one clause of one sentence?
  • They all have some information that is available for those who click over. The first two give some personal details about the placement, the third gives the full list of candidates, and the fourth (from four months before the examination) provides background on what the examination actually entailed; it took a bit of digging to track the last one down. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""local paper" newspaper.
  • "finally called to the bar in 1896,[28][29][30] " again, three cites for this? And "called to the bar" is jargon.
  • "both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history" both seems odd when three are listed, and do these have suitable articles?
  • It's just two: 1) "Roman law", and 2) "Constitutional law and legal history". See the comment above beginning with "The way I understand it" for a fuller discussion of the point. I could add quotation marks around them, if that would make it clearer. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quickly became standards " again, not sure what that means.
  • "through four editions each;[34][35] the third, a translation" confusing here as this could be related to the third edition mentioned in the previous clause.
  • "quickly became a standard" you said pretty much this just a para or so ago, repetitive.
  • "editions of Old English texts" Old English is overlinked.
  • "cross references" hyphenate unless you mean angry citations.
  • "expanded edition followed" I would reiterate the work here, "expanded edition of the dictionary followed"
  • "supplement by Herbert Dean Meritt[51][52]—" this person may be meaningful enough to be noted here for his supplement but without context or a link, it's like "meh".
  • I see the thrust of that clause as saying just "the edition was Hall's work plus a supplement by someone else," but in any event I've added a description, red link, and cite to a bio, for Meritt. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tenth English translation" do we really need to link English?
  • "trot to Beowulf".[1] " text/punctuation crash again.
  • You link The Manchester Guardian but not The Guardian previously. In the previous instance, was it really called The Guardian or was it The Manchester Guardian back there too?
  • "compendium of Beowulf material" any reason Beowulf isn't in italics in this quote but is in italics in other quotes?
  • "desideratum" what is that?!
  • "The Athenæum, for its part," what does "for its part" add to this? I don't imagine it would quote for anyone else's "part"?
  • ""Prefatory Remarks on Prose Translation of 'Beowulf'"," similar comment re: italics for Beowulf here.
  • "Beowulf of Scyld ... " italics? And needs a non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
  • "a metrical translation" jargon, needs explanation.
  • "W. G. Sedgefield[79] suggested" red linked to imply notable but context, who was this individual?
  • "of translating the poem" surely this link should/could be applied earlier, e.g. "published a literal translation of Beowulf"?
  • "the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge published two " overlinked.
  • ""The former, Herbert Tingle..." too many clauses to easily parse for me.
  • "journal School a reviewer" comma after School.
  • "or Montessori ... yet his" non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • "read it, ... [a]ny way" likewise. And do we need that comma?
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
  • "time in Peckham as a child" overlinked.
  • "the "straphanger",[106] which" jargon, needs explanation.
  • "unable to move " not really, surely.
  • Here's what the source says: "It so happened that we were all in Switzerland when the late war broke out, and were unable to move or communicate with our friends for more than a fortnight." I'm sure what he meant is that they were unable to move from place to place. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broadside ... purporting " jargon and non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • "fiction ... which" non-breaking space.
  • "Southern Gaul" I know this is in a quote but do our readers know where this is? Doubtful.
  • "home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.[83][111][112] three citations needed?
  • "left a £16,762 estate" could inflate to provide modern context.
  • "that the R.S.P.C.A. seemed" no full stops in their usual initialism, and this is effectively unexplained unless you put (RSPCA) into the prose.
  • Note 4 needs a full stop.
  • "parochial comprehensiveness" that's a proper easter egg link, I had no idea it would lead there.
  • "told ... that" non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • Ref 21, year shouldn't be in italics.
  • Ref 59, work should be in italics.
  • Ref 83 likewise.
  • "The Huddersfield Daily Chronicle" vs " The Huddersfield Chronicle" daily or not or different works?
  • Same work, but the cover of each issue has a different title (Friday; Saturday). The full name of the Saturday issue is The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser, with "and West Yorkshire Advertiser" in smaller font. I imagine it reflects a weekday/weekend difference, where the Huddersfield Chronicle came out daily, but on weekends was combined with the West Yorkshire Advertiser. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the London Gazette of Yesterday" is that not London Gazette?
  • "1858-1995" should be en-dash.
  • "pp. 1–307" really??
  • Manc Guardian is relinked in the Bibliography but things like The Standard are not, take a consistent approach.
  • No barrister category?
  • No translator category?

That's all I have from a first read. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Rambling Man, I appreciate the review. I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice piece of work, so I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I think that the section on his Anglo-Saxon dictionary exaggerates its status. It "quickly became a standard work upon its publication in 1894" is cited to a 1962 review in Scientific American, which is probably not an authoritative source for AS history. It may have been "a standard work" as a cheap alternative to Bosworth-Toller, but the comment is misleading. Garnett's 1898 review, which you cite, says that anyone who can afford it will use Bosworth-Toller, but there is still room for a dictionary between it and the smaller ones, i.e. Clark Hall and Sweet's 1897 dictionary. Mark Atherton on 'Dictionaries' in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England describes Clark Hall and Sweet as compact alternatives to Bosworth-Toller, but says that they have all been superseded by the Toronto Dictionary of Old English from 1986. I think that Atherton's comment is worth citing as showing the current status of Hall's dictionary. You do qualify your comments with phrases such as "an introductory resource", but the overall impression is misleading.
  • You're probably right, and thanks in particular for the useful Atherton reference. This is complicated slightly by Magoun's 1932 review, which claims that "In its new garb the Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is without rival in its field". Perhaps, however, "in its field" is a way of qualifying it against Bosworth-Toller. And in any event, Atherton (writing in 2014) agrees that Bosworth-Toller led the pack until the 1986 Dictionary of Old English. Let me know if you agree with the revisions to this section (namely the first paragraph). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New English Dictionary. It would be more helpful to readers to use the name Oxford English Dictionary, especially as that title was coming into use at that time.
  • "At last", wrote The Guardian, "we have a complete Anglo-Saxon dictionary, complete from A to the very end of the alphabet." The key qualification here is "to the very end of the alphabet" In 1894 Bosworth was out of print and Toller did not complete his multi-volume revision until 1898, so the Guardian's 1894 statement was true for four years, but it does not seem significant in 2021.
  • Is there a reason you chose Liuzza's translation for comparison?
  • "discussed the ethics of birth control". I would specify that it is an attack on birth control.
  • 'Personal life' seems a bit of a rag bag. The fact that he was unable to communicate with friends for a fortnight is hardly worth mentioning and the letter of Jesus belongs in his writings.
  • Honestly, that's just all I was able to find about his personal life. He apparently found his time trapped in Switzerland worthy of note—it's one of the few things he wrote about himself in his book on Tingle—and apparently it considerably worried Tingle (and perhaps others) at the time. And the letter about the broadside is listed among Hall's works, but I don't think it bears discussion there, for two reasons. First, unlike his other writings, it is Hall soliciting information, not offering it. Second, it's origin—passed down from Hall's Yorkshire ancestors—speaks, albeit marginally, to his background. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think RSPCA is normally shown as one word, not with stops.
  • This is an interesting article. I would like to have known more about who taught him AS and what his PhD was about, but of course it cannot be helped if the information is not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. Responses above. Hall probably learned English at the University of London, given his BA followed by MA in English and French from the school. Unfortunately, however, I haven't been able to find out anything about his Ph.D.; in fact, the only evidence of it is his use of "Ph.D." as a post-nominal. But you've inspired me to send an email to a library at the University of London, so perhaps that will shed some more light on it. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Hall's A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary became a standard work upon its 1894 publication". I think "widely used" as below would be more accurate.
  • " issued four years before the final volume of Joseph Bosworth's An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary". It was the final volume of Bosworth Toller.
  • "After Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller in 1898" See above - I think it goes better there.
  • I am not sure whether you should mention Sweet. Worldcat at [56] shows that it was never revised, but unlike Hall it is in print as an ebook as well as a print book. Of course what you can say depends on sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Probably wasting my time here. Comments refer to Old revision of John Richard Clark Hall

  • Sources seem to be high quality, although I'm not versed in the subject. I initially thought John Richard Clark Hall was a building.
  • fn 13, 14, 15, 16, 75, 105, 106, 108 - page number required?
  • fn 33 - pp. 1 to 307? Can we have something more specific?
  • fn 58 - access date required?
  • Spot checks 23, 46, 50, 66, 70, 92 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: No rush, but just a heads up that all the issues raised in this nomination have been resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (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) 9 May 2021 [57].

R. A. B. Mynors

[edit]
Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The two week period between nominations was waived by a coordinator.) This article is about the Latinist Roger Mynors who wrote the standard editions of the Latin poets Vergil and Catullus. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

A recent nomination of this article was archived after it emerged that coverage of his publications needed to be expanded. Noswall59 and Llywrch generously helped me rectify these omissions at a peer review. These were the main obstacles at the last FAC and I believe the article is now in good shape. I will be grateful for any suggestions for improvement.

In addition to those above, I'm notifying all who commented on the last nomination: Gerda Arendt, Gen. Quon, Therapyisgood, SandyGeorgia, Caeciliusinhorto, Ergo Sum, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I happily threw in my support last go around, and I still think that it is up to FA standards.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The final accomplishment of his career was a comprehensive commentary on Vergil's Georgics" - the text says this was done after retirement, which is correct?
  • "Mynors was knighted in 1963 for his service to classical scholarship" - the text says he was knighted, but not why - source for this?
  • Source for having influenced Tarrant?
  • The Publications list includes ISBNs for items published before that system was implemented - are these for later editions?
  • These ISBNs are those under which the books are sold by Oxford University Press today. In his edition of Catullus (1958), which I purchased last year, the year is still given as 1958 and no subsequent editions seem to have been made. I assume they added ISBNs to their older publications once they were introduced. But I am by no means an expert on this. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks a lot for this. Please see my comment on ISBNs above. You may have a better idea than me about whether it's common practice to retroactively add ISBNs to older books. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Not withstanding Nikki's points above, which seem resolved, spent a very enjoyable half hour reading over this today. The article is impeccably written, the sources are of the first quality, and comparing it as it stands now to when the last nom was closed; am confident that the scholarship has been brought up to date. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum

[edit]
  • "both of England's leading universities" - since link goes to Oxbridge, I think it should include the "both of"
  • "country residence at Treago Castle" - was his residence the castle itself or was it located there as just a part of the castle/copmlex. If the former, then I would remove "at" and offset Treago Castle with comas.
  • "Mynors' reputation is that of Britain's foremost classicists" - this strikes my ear as odd phrasing. Perhaps it is a Britishism I am unfamiliar with? He cannot be multiple people, so I think it would have to be "one of Britain's" or some other rephrasing.
  • You can use {{Marriage}} in the infobox.
  • I would link gentry to the appropriate article.
  • "as a scholar" - is this a typical way of referring to Etonians, or does it refer to a particular scholarship? If not, I wonder what it adds to the sentence.
  • "He became a fellow of Pembroke College" - this short sentence reads as a bit jarring. An "also" might soothe the reader a bit
  • It's generally preferable to have inline citations come at the end of sentences, or at least after punctuation. Unless there is a reason otherwise, Fn 17 can be moved to the end of the sentence.
  • "Eton headmaster Alington" - I think you need a coma after headmaster
  • "first as a joint" - I assume "joint" refers to the subsequent "editor." Because the two are separated by dependent clause commas, it might benefit to repeat "editor" after "joint"
  • "Church historian" - which church? Is it Christian churches in general or the Anglican church?
  • "autumn of 2020" - Per MOS:SEASONS, use of seasons to refer to a part of the year is deprecated. If there is a month, that can be substituted, or simply 2020 might work just as well.
  • Because it is a complete sentence, "beginning of the poem's sixth book" in the caption needs ending punctuation.
  • Ditto "In his retirement"
  • My understanding of British honors is minimal, but if I understand correctly, one can be knighted as either a Knight Bachelor or a member of chivalric order, in which case, they carry post-nominals. I think it should be specified which one was the case for Mynors.

A very fine article. Congratulations. I wholly intend to support, pending the resolution of the above comments. Ergo Sum 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you for a set of really thorough comments! I have done my best to address them. Please don't hesitate to ask if you require more detail on any of my above replies. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy to support. Ergo Sum 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noswall59

[edit]

As I said in the previous review, this is a very well-written, accessible overview of Mynors' life. It now also covers his contribution to scholarship in detail. I have read Winterbottom's 1993 obituary; I noticed that the article barely mentioned Mynors' edition of Cassiodorus's Institutiones, so I added it to the bibliography and a couple of sentences to the contributions to textual criticism. Otherwise, I'm satisfied that this is essentially comprehensive and further discussion of his textual criticism, if more can be said, belongs in the articles about the texts rather than here.

My final comment is therefore only a suggestion for the nominator. Having reviewed the article one more time, I wondered what they thought about a structural re-jigging as tested in my sandbox: User:Noswall59/sandbox5? I'm suggesting this because, to me, it now seems odd to have the bibliographic/palaeographic and Virgil paragraphs in the legacy section when they seem more at home in the scholarship one. And the mentions of the Festschrift and Balliol exhibition probably belong in the honours section. This is somewhat stylistic, and it doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else, but I actually think it makes more sense... What do you reckon Modussiccandi? There is nothing which makes me oppose this at present but I shall hold off on supporting pending your reply on the structural question. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: Thank you very much for your additions on Cassiodorus; they go way beyond the call of duty. I've also taken over your re-ordering. Since the "Contributions" section is rather long now, I've considered adding sub-headings. All but the last and first paragraphs are on his critical editions, so two sub-sections would only be one paragraph in length. I've added them in for now, do feel free to tinker with them. Be that as it may, I should like to thank you for your sustained interest in the article. I really appreciate your effort. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modussiccandi. I'm happy with the article now and have gladly switched to support. A top-rate effort and a model for articles on similar scholars (hopefully the first of many!) I've added one further heading in the section, but I'm open to there being no headings or to you/someone else changing this. I've also red-linked W. S. Maguinness. He certainly seems notable enough for an article in the future. Thanks very much for your contribution and for your patience and adaptability! —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Only five images:

  1. File:Portrait photograph of Rogers Mynors.jpg Tagged for deletion as missing evidence of permission. Since subject is dead, recommend just adding a template:Non-free use rationale 2 template to the free image and be done with it.
  2. File:Treago-Castle-375001 13a17522-by-Tony-Bailey.jpg CC-by-SA 2.0 licence
  3. File:Cristoforo Majorana - Leaf from Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid - Walters W400118V - Open Reverse.jpg Has OTRS ticket.
  4. File:Beda Petersburgiensis f3v.jpg Published in 746. Copyright expired.
  5. File:Hereford Cathedral Exterior from NW, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg CC-by-3.0 licence.

One issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amitchell125

[edit]

Great writing, I agree with all the positive comments given so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Z1720 - pass

[edit]

Checked and verified: Bonner 133, Fuchs 89, Gaselee 189, Gotoff 310, 310-11, 311, Johnston, Levine 416, Maguinness 198, Sewter 105, Souter 195, Williams 89, Winterbottom 389, Hamblen 22, 6, 1. I could not access Harrison, Nisbet, and Trappes-Lomax. Below are some notes on other citations:

  • For Gatch 543, I could not verify that "His was the first critical edition of this text since that of Charles Plummer (1896)."
  • For Gotoff 309, I could not verify that the translations were for the Univerity of Toronto Press.
  • It says " Another engagement of his later years was translating the Letters of Erasmus for Toronto". I think it's common academic parlance to omit the word "press" in statements such as this. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bethany Hamblen is not referenced in the article, so it should not be in the Bibliography.
  • You are right, I ctr+f'ed the wrong name. I couldn't verify, "In 1922, Mynors won the Domus exhibition", "In 1945, shortly after moving to Cambridge, he married Lavinia Alington, a medical researcher" (the year), "Most of his work as an editor of Latin texts took place during this second period at Oxford. Working for the Oxford Classical Texts series, he produced critical editions of the complete works of Catullus (1958) and Vergil (1969), and of Pliny the Younger's Epistulae (1963)."
  • 1) The Domus exhibition is mentioned in the first para. on p. 3. 2) year of marriage is now from Nisbet. 3) The source for the editions is now Gotoff p. 311. My placement of these refs was really off... Modussiccandi (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Magguiness 200, I could not verify that "and added an index of personal names." or "His Oxford editions of the poets Catullus and Vergil in particular have proved important contributions to the field;"
  • Re. index: the source says "The provision of an Index Norninum, lacking in Hirtzel, is greatly to be appreciated", index nominum being Latin for "index of personal names". Re. Catullus and Vergil: I replaced this statement with a quotation to a similar effect by Gotoff. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Oliver 51, I could not verify that "Mynors' second critical edition was of the poems of Catullus." I was able to verify the other statements.
  • For Peacocke 325, I could not verify "At Balliol, Mynors taught from 1926 until 1944, a time during which he mentored many future scholars, including the Wittgenstein expert David Pears."
  • "They maintained a close friendship,[11] which exposed Mynors to other German philologists, including Rudolf Pfeiffer and Otto Skutsch.[12]" Why are these two separate footnotes? Can they be merged?
  • "Mynors established a new text of Bede's Ecclesiastical History for the edition he published together with the historian Bertram Colgrave. His was the first critical edition of this text since that of Charles Plummer (1896).[40] Collation of the Saint Petersburg Bede, an 8th-century manuscript unknown to Plummer, allowed Mynors to construct a new version of the M tradition.[40]" Why are two footnotes used here for the same reference?
  • In the paragraph that starts with "Mynors' second critical edition was of the poems of Catullus." Why are there three citations to [32] in a row? Can we delete the first two citations?

Thank you very much for this, Z1720. Please see my comments on your observations above. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've addressed your new comments above. Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check - passed. I have verified all references I had access to, as stated above. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

I saw this excellent article a while back and meant to comment then but subsequently overlooked it. You have already garnered a clutch of, well-deserved, Supports and I shall be pleased to add to them. Just a few queries/comments that struck me at the time.

Infobox
  • “Sir R. A. B. Mynors” - this blend of knighthood and initials strikes me as odd. Looking at the Knight Bachelor article, and other examples of Kt. infoboxes, I think the usual form is Sir Roger Aubrey ....
Early life
  • “Mynors was born Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry in the south-west of England” - there are a couple of things here: first, it’s missing an “in”, between born and Langley Burrell. More critical, I don’t get the “in the south-west of England”. Is this referring to Langley Burrell or to his family? If, as I think, it’s the latter, then I don’t think it’s right. The Mynors were Herefordshire gentry, and Herefordshire isn’t in the south-west. Assuming it is the family that is being referenced, then something like, “Mynors was born in Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry from the midlands of England/Herefordshire”?
  • “The Mynors family had owned the estate of Treago Castle since the 16th century...” - following on from the above, I’d tweak this a little. First, I think it would help to clarify that Treago is somewhere other than Wiltshire, which amending the previous sentence may do. Second, I think “family” is probably redundant. Last, I think 16th should be 15th. Brooks/Pevsner in the revised Herefordshire Pevsner (2012) gives 1470 as the date of Sir Richard Mynors building Treago. Similarly, the Historic England listing [58], states “been in the hands of the Mynors family since early C15.” Although I see they use “Mynors family”, so you could ignore my earlier comment on this. So something like, “The Mynors had owned the Treago Castle estate, at St Weonards 10 miles south of Hereford, since the 15th century”?
  • “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford, and from 1916, attended Eton College” - could you replace the second “attended” with something else for variety, for example, “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford and in 1916 entered Eton College as a scholar?
  • “His precocious interest in Latin literature and its transmission” - it may be that there is no other suitable term but “transmission” gave me pause, and I think it may trouble other lay readers. It is meaning “the ways in which classical texts were circulated and preserved prior to the invention of printing”. We don’t appear to have an article, which would have enabled a bluelink. If there is no other suitable word, I would recommend an explanation, either in the body or by way of a footnote.
Balliol
  • “Hertford (1924), Craven (1924), and Derby (1926) scholarships” - well out of my depth, and certainly go with the source, but is the Craven a Fellowship, rather than a scholarship?
  • “focussed on the poet Vergil” - again, it is certain that classical scholarship has moved on, and Vergil may now be the preferred spelling. I only note that our article has Virgil, with “Vergil” as a redirect.
  • “his being employed at the Exchange Control Department of Her Majesty's Treasury responsible for the administration of foreign currency exchange” - again, to avoid the duplicate, perhaps “the administration of foreign currency transactions”?
Apologies - have to break off now. Back shortly. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pembroke College
  • “daughter of his former teacher and Eton headmaster, Alington” - while that may well have been Mynor’s mode of address, I think I’d also give him his forename, Cyril.
Retirement
  • “In addition to more leisurely pursuits, such as arboriculture and stamp collecting, his retirement saw work...” - Here, we disagree on the textual analysis. Aside from arboriculture not being a “leisurely” pursuit, the source describes it as ‘hard labour’, I don’t think it means “stamp collecting” in the “philately” sense. I think he and his wife jokingly called his arboretum, his “stamp collection”. I don’t think the text permits of any other meaning.
  • Well done for spotting a veritable mistake. I never noticed that stamp collection was in inverted commas. I have done away with "leisurely" and changed it to "an intense dedication to arboriculture", I think this is a fair representation of the source (if read correctly). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In 1980, the parish set up a fund in Mynors' name to be used on a collection of rare books” Two things. First, what parish? His parish of St Weonards, or the cathedral? And not sure of the meaning of “to be used on”. To buy a collection / preserve, restore it / catalogue it?
Critical editions
  • “Because of his reluctance to emend beyond the transmitted readings” - as with “transmission”, I think “emend” will confuse the lay reader. Here, we do have a redirect Emendation (textual), which takes you to the Process section of Textual criticism. I think this bluelink, perhaps with an explanation?, will assist the general reader. You link it two para.s down, but I’d given it on the first appearance.
  • “he rejected the traditional archaising orthography” - again, would a link, or explanation, or both, assist the reader?
Commentary on the Georgics
  • “the commentary fails to engage seriously with contemporary scholarship on the text, such as the tension between optimistic and pessimistic readings” - again, the lay reader, including me, will struggle here, [59]. Is a simple explanation, probably in a footnote, possible?

That’s me done. It’s a superb article. Is it your first FAC? If it is, my hearty congratulations. The prose, research and enthusiasm shine through. Shall be pleased to support when you’ve had an opportunity to consider the above. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much, KJP1, for your comments. They do particularly well to address accessibility issues which tend to be overlooked. I have agreed with most of them. This is indeed my first FAC but I've profited immensely from the many people who, like you, have taken the time to help polish this article. Do let me know if I haven't gone far enough to address your suggestions for improvement. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a great pleasure, and congratulations again on a superb article. Thank you for such a fast turnaround on the comments, which fully address the issues. I’m delighted to Support and look forward to seeing it on the front page. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding infobox image: The copyright holder's permission has been processed by OTRS and the image in the infobox is now free. I've removed the fair-use template recommended by Hawkeye7. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2021 (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) 9 May 2021 [60].

2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's been a long long time since I nominated an article for FAC (FLC has been my main hang-out for many years), but after seeing the excellent work done by The Rambling Man with 1987 FA Cup Final, I decided to finally expand this article (which I got to GA in 2008 - heavens, was it really that long ago?) to a (hopefully) FA-worthy state. I have tried to write in a way which non-experts will be able to understand/follow (the use of some footballing terms is by definition unavoidable but hopefully I have kept it simple and avoided real jargon, but the odd bit might have slipped through, so feel free to pull me up on that). All comments will be most welcome and promptly acted upon. Disclaimer: I am a Gillingham fan and was at this game cheering them to victory, but I am confident that everything in the article is handled in a NPOV manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • Per WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I do not see how omitting the promotional poster would be detrimental to the understanding of the article.
  • Other image licensing is OK. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - replaced with a free image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]
  • "was a football match", I think it's generally preferred to got for "an association football match" to avoid ambiguity for our readers over the pond.
  • "1999–2000 season", I'd probably extend the link to season as well to make it crystal clear.
  • Should "the" be capitalised in "The Football League" when used mid-sentence like this?
  • Might be worth noting how the team's fared in the following season at the end of the lead, similar in fashion to TRM's articles
  • "them thanks to their 2–1 win", thanks sounds a little informal, perhaps replace with following or something similar?
  • "scored a goal for Gillingham", a goal is probably redundant here.
  • "previous season's Second Division play-off Final", worth linking to the article?
  • "with Darren Sheridan dominating", Sheridan has already been mentioned by this point so no need to use his first name again. Same with Iffy Onoura slightly further on.
  • Link crossed to Cross (association football).
  • "Simon Haworth flicked it up", no need for the first name again. Sheridan, Barlow and Ashby also have the same issue in the extra time section. Ty Gooden is also linked for a second time here too.
  • Defender is linked in the extra time section, by is used a few times before this. Move the link to the first usage.
  • What order are the substitutes listed in the details section? There doesn't seem any obvious ordering (number, position, alphabetical, etc?)
  • A few first name repeats in the post-mact section, Benson, Taylor, Hessenthaler.
  • "2002–03 season" include season in the link to match the rest of the article.
  • "penultimate game to take place" > to be played perhaps. The following sentence uses the take place wording again which is a little repetitive.

Hi Chris, nice to see you at FAC. This is a few points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: - all done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

[edit]

Hi Chris, quite impressive to see you have been contributing to WP since at least 2008. I am happy to review, but I'm afraid it will be in stages and not all at once. From a quick first reading I expect very little to be able to contribute, as I find the text well-written and a pleasure to read.

  • previous(ly) is used 3 times in short succession in opening paragraph
  • at the higher level; after losing --> I'm not a fan of semicolons, and it's your call of course, but using the semicolon here made me think the 2nd bit was also going to be about Gillingham.
  • Even He can’t put consistency into the referees". --> full sentence so I think it is ."
  • BBC --> link. I just realised I tend to use BBC Sport but for no conscious reason. Must have copied from someone else.
  • The odds on both teams were considered to be equal, at 5–6 --> as given by whom?
  • was Andy Hessenthaler's six-year-old son --> is the use of Andy here deliberate or just an oversight? And same question for Derek Stillie in next paragraph

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

But enough with the niceties, on with the show :)

  • Shortly afterwards, Wigan were awarded --> awarded used twice on same line
  • with the commentary team stating that --> perhaps add Sky: the Sky commentary team
  • first corner kick of the game, but Wigan goalkeeper Stillie was able to catch --> not so sure about that "but". There is quite a bit implied here. Perhaps something along the lines of "but nothing came to it as Wigan goalkeeper..."
  • Four minutes before the end of the game --> the end of regular time you mean
  • "You feel cheated, but decisions like that are part of the game". --> ."
  • in a celebratory open-top bus parade. --> would it be nice to add perhaps where this took place?
    • From non-reliable sources I know that it was definitely in Gillingham (as one might expect), but the only reliable source I could find which mentions it (the one in the article) just refers to "the town". Do you think it's too much of a stretch to specifically state Gillingham in the article with that as the ref........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The context in the source is clear. Fine to say Gillingham in article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before it was mostly demolished and a new stadium of the same name built in its place --> shouldn't there be a "was" before built?
Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • never written those players off, never". --> ."
  • is there anything to be said about the financial aspects of winning or losing this match? These days it has a big impact, going up or not, but was it like that 20 years ago?
    • I can't find any sources that talk about that. There's a lot of talk about the financial impact of going up from what is now the Championship to the Premier League, but I don't recall ever seeing much talk about the impact of going up from League One to the Championship...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, I could not make any significant contributions, just nitpicking. Nice work. Once I have time I will look at the sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all fine. This weekend I will do a source review. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • Linking inconsistencies: the Independent is linked 2 out of 3 times. The Times and BBC Sport seem never linked. I believe there is no rule other than being consistent. I prefer to link every instance, but that's just me.
  • The locations of the publisher of the books are missing.

Spot check:

  • #1 all fine
  • #2 doesn't seem to cover this bit "one position ahead of Wigan Athletic" (I guess you can just add #1)
    • Done
  • #4 all fine except for the generic rules bit "with one game at each team's home stadium and the result determined based on the aggregate score of the two games". I assume that is covered by #5, which I can't access
    • Another ref added for good measure
  • #6 doesn't seem to cover these bits "Four days after the first leg matches took place, Wigan defeated Millwall 1–0" and " midfielder Darren Sheridan scored the only goal of the game in the second half" but #7 does, so I guess it's just a matter of moving #6 to the end of the sentence.
    • Done
  • #7 Fine. Oddly enough the BBC does not mention that the game went to extra time. So I guess you had to add #8, which I can't access
    • Yes, that ref does mention it, but I added another one for good measure
  • #9 ok
  • #65 ok
  • #40 I couldn't see the following bit exactly word for word: "These players, especially the ones that were here last year, deserved it. All season they've shown unbelievable character, and that's what they have done today. They never know when they are beaten"
    • Fixed - I forgot to copy a ref from elsewhere in the article
  • #47 ok
  • #66 ok
  • #67 ok
  • #68 ok
  • #21 ok
  • #69 ok
  • #70 is a dead link
Yes that is the one. It works fine for me now too. Odd. Just noticed though that the dates are not right.
  • #39 ok
  • #72 ok
  • #73 ok
  • #74 ok
  • #54 ok
  • #55 the timing is off here. I would say around 02:34:40
    • Done
  • #56 ok
  • #58 ok
  • #59 ok
  • #60 ok

That's it. I'll watch some more of that game on YouTube now. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. To the best of my knowledge this article now meets all criteria for FA, so Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for not being clear. Yes, it is pass for source review, spot check and prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Consider this a mostly non-expert review.

That's it for my first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2021 (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) 9 May 2021 [61].

Bajadasaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I did the GA, so for now I only have some suggestions for additional sources. And then I wonder if, since you mention the semicircular canal head posture theories, if it should be stated some studies have doubted this idea? I'll come back later if it needs further reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding size estimates, I assume that the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" book[65] is new enough to have an entry on this genus, but I don't remember whether we concluded it was reliable enough or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article[66] states it "hit the headlines" for it spines, which could maybe be a way to cite that it became well-known immediately after its description? Personally I think it's interesting to note how the press reacted to the discovery, and that almost every headline mentioned its "mohawk". FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took that into account, but there is barely any useful info inside there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - might as well give my formal support since this seems to have stalled. I GA reviewed the article with FAC in mind, and it has only been improved since. FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta comments

[edit]

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the citation formatting could use a bit of tidying. Some examples:
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this; now that everyone else has had a look, I'm finding only small nitpicks: Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”The eye openings of Bajadasaurus were exposed when the skull is viewed from above” I know what this is trying to say (i.e., it’s a rewording of “dorsally exposed orbits” from the source) , but the way it’s written it sounds like they weren’t exposed when not viewed this way? (same issue later on in the article as well)
I now switched back to "in top view", as I had originally (and changed per reviewer suggestion), to avoid this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish (language) and Greek are linked, so for consistency one might want to also link Latin
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”referring to the long and forward curved neural spines” -> forward-curved
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”the discovery of Bajadasaurus was widely reported on by international news media.”
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The neural spine of the axis was narrow and not bifurcated; it differed from other sauropods in being vertically oriented (an autapomorphy of the genus); triangular in cross-section; and tapering towards its apex.” I think those final two semicolons should be commas
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing those out. Done all except for the last; it is not a flagellum. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A subsequent analysis by Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla” Whitlock’s first name is not mentioned in the article text
added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says that CONICET "said Bajadasaurus could have had a fleshy hump between the spines that served a similar role to that of a camel", which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article
Thanks, but I think we need to restrict ourselves to the peer-reviewed scientific articles when it comes to speculations like this. News articles are generally highly unreliable in such contexts, and this quote does not even make sense and seems to be highly oversimplified at best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article meets the FA criteria. Esculenta (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Could we be told how old the genus is in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • "from the Early Cretaceous epoch"; " from the Early or Middle Jurassic to the end of the Early Cretaceous". Both from the opening paragraph. Appears 1. repetitive, 2. inconsistant.
  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • "bifurcated". Possibly follow with '(two-pronged)'?
  • Link gracile.
  • "The only specimen was excavated ..." As this is the start of the main article, I feel that a proper reintroduction may read better. Perhaps something like 'The only specimen of the dinosaur genus Bajadasaurus was excavated ..."?
  • "The site of discovery". Should that be 'The site of the discovery;>
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
  • "near the western banks". Is that in US English? "banks" plural reads oddly to me.
  • Link anteriorly.
  • Link process at first mention.
  • "As all sauropods". Should that be 'As with all sauropods'?
  • "roughly reaching sizes of present-day Asian Elephants". 1. Maybe 'roughly reaching the size of present-day Asian Elephants'? 2. Lower case e.
  • "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers.
  • Caption: "whose similarly elongate neural spines". Should that be 'elongated'?
  • "The skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase" reads oddly, especially as the start of a section. Perhaps 'The fossilised skull', or something else to clarify that you are not writing about Bajadasaurus skulls in general.
  • "Its overall built was gracile." "built" → 'build'.
  • "was wider than high". Optional: → 'was wider than it was high'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus." → 'Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, which was different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus.'
  • "likely had 44 teeth in total." I am struggling to add the numbers to 44. Either in the article or in Gallina et al. Could you help me out?
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as typical for dicraeosaurids" → 'as is typical for dicraeosaurids'?
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moderate damages would result in the break-off of the horny tips". 'damage' singular, I think.
  • "while the sight of most other sauropods" Maybe "sight" → 'vision'?
  • "furthermore" → 'further'.
  • "At its top, it is separated by the overlying Agrio Formation". Should that be 'At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation'?
  • "mya". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page ..."
  • done.
  • Several references lack identifiers. Eg ISSNs or JSTORs.

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts
[edit]

I stopped by to see why this was still on the list and am now kicking myself. The Rambling Man has identified some good points, several of which I read straight past, I assume because I understand them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.

There is obviously room to disagree over what constitutes "unnecessarily", “highly technical”, “appropriate”, “understand” and “sense”. But the general message seems clear.

TRM seems to have done a good job of picking out possible issues re this bit of the MoS; so far as I can see, the unresolved ones are:

  • Braided river
  • stage
  • phylogenetic analysis
  • specific name
  • braincase
  • prefrontal
  • surangular
  • Features

There are more ways to skin a cat than putting it in parentheses. So purely as optional suggestions for your consideration I offer:

  • Perhaps “These sediments were mostly deposited by braided rivers” ‘These sediments were mostly deposited by networks of separate river channels, known as braided rivers ...' or similar?
Here I wonder why an explanation is necessary in the first place. The word "braided" is not needed to understand the general meaning of the sentence, it is just an additional bit of information (specifying the type of river). I fear that a short explanation like this does not do it justice, and people will get a wrong picture into their heads (they have to understand that these are small, very shallow river channels diverging and uniting, not what you think of when you hear the word "river channel"). With your suggestion, we would also introduce an awkward repetition ("river channels" is repeated later in the sentence). To sum up, I would argue that the general reader does not need to understand this term, and those who want to are better served with the designated article on that topic that is linked. But I am also not strictly against adding an explanation, I'm just wondering if it is really the best solution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated to the late Berriasian to Valanginian stages of the Early Cretaceous". I am not sure that a technical term is necessary here. Could a less technical word be used? 'era' perhaps? (And linked to stage. And yes, I am aware of Era (geology).) Or 'epoch' or 'period'?
In fact, we add the word "stage" to this and other dinosaur FAs to achieve the opposite: To add a bit more context, indicating that Berriasian and Valanginian are some sort of time intervals. It is supposed to help the general reader. In a technical article, we can just simply omit such words. I am open to remove them, but I'm not quite convinced this would really improve the situation for a general reader (because Berriasian and Valanginian are left without this context). "Epoch", "period", "era" all have different definitions, and using them instead would simply be wrong. We could choose something like "time intervals" instead of "stage", but that seems awkward to me (especially because "Early Cretaceous", which follows, is also a time interval). Please let me know if you feel this word should be removed, but in this case, it could be that TRM will complain about the then unexplained terms "Berriasian" and "Valanginian". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specimen was formally described as the holotype of a new genus and species". Maybe something like 'The specimen was formally described, and this description was used as the "holotype", or defining example, of a new genus and species' would give a casual reader sufficient in line information without reducing the article to baby talk?
This is another example of a term that is not needed to understand the sentence (as I also explained in the discussion with TRM below). Explaining it will suggest to the reader that this is something important that they need to know and remember in order to continue with the rest of the article, when in fact they can just ignore and forget this term. Explanations, therefore, can make reading articles more difficult; this is another reason why I have my personal issues with providing explanations that are not pertinent for the article. But to resolve this issue (and to illustrate my point), I just removed this term completely from the article. This, now, is no longer in-line with other dinosaur FAs and will only work as long as there is only a single specimen, but for now, at least, we got rid of one potentially confusing term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I agree that understanding this term will be important. I took your suggestion, which didn't came to my mind when I first pondered about it while addressing TRM's suggestions, so thanks for this. It might be true that people with a bit more knowledge about the topic might need to think a second to understand what we mean with this unfamiliar circumlocution, but then, again, I agree that our general audience should get priority. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specific name" IMO needs a footnote.
But what is, if I may ask, the practical advantage of a footnote over a wiki link? Both require a click. I now tried to solve this issue with a small fix: adding pronuspinax, to demonstrate that it refers to this part of the name. Do you think this makes it reasonably clear already? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clever. Given that the previous sentence starts "The specimen was formally described as a new genus and species, Bajadasaurus pronuspinax" yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "braincase" seems a normal and understandable English word to me, especially in context: "the skull roof and braincase". Ie I don't personally see any reason to further explain this.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that "orbit" has already been explained, "The upper-front corner of the orbit was formed by the prefrontal bone" seems a perfectly adequate in line explanation to me.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surangular bone seems a tricky one. Possibly a footnote?
But we already explain that it is a bone in the hind part of the lower jaw; what else would the reader need to know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Features" seems to be being used in the normal English sense: "anatomical features distinguishing the group from related taxa".
Yes, indeed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the unrecused coordinators will make of your not addressing these points, or only addressing some of them, but I am a fan of encyclopedia articles actually explaining their subjects to as broad a range of readers as reasonably possible. Any how, see what you think.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog, and thanks for your suggestions. Like you, I also aim to explain terms as best as reasonably possible. You made some excellent suggestions I did not think about before, which I implemented. For the others, please see my detailed reasoning below your points. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not really the audience, that would be The Rambling Man. You would seem to have addressed all of the issues they raised, it is now over to them to decide if you have done so to their satisfaction. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, your comment re holotype now being inconsistent with other dino FAs. Ha, you should grumble! In my Featured Topic Crécy campaign, I don't think that any two are wholly consistent: the joys of having a different set of FAC reviewers each time. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
How about something like "Bajadasaurus sported elongated pairs of spines running along the nape, extending as far as 58 cm (1 ft 11 in) towards the head of the animal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you show the cladogram from the 2019 study instead of the 2020 one?
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about inches, but I just relied on the conversion template here (I didn't even specify inches, it prefers this unit, and converts to feet only at larger values). I think this issue should be fixed in the template directly if we want to have any consistency between articles. I refrain from changing it manually because it would be inconsistent to other articles that use the template. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency among template inputs is not important, their primary purpose is accessibility, and 4 ft is more digestible than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the general rule we follow, I think we need to change the template accordingly, rather than fixing individual articles manually. I personally don't see any problem with using inches here, and if converting to feet gives me something like "19 ft 9 in" I really dislike it as it adds (in my eyes) unnecessary clutter. And I do feel that consistency between articles is very important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I switched to "58 cm (1.90 ft)" now instead of the mixed units (for which I don't even know how to tell the template to use them), is this acceptable as well? Another option would be to remove the conversion entirely, as it is not required for scientific articles according to WP:MOS. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all Americans can't understand metric system, me included. If you leave it as just 58 cm, then I don't know what you're saying. Also ft in is more understandable than decimal ft. It doesn't look cluttered to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you can certainly understand my annoyance and ignorance of a foreign unit system as well! Since we have only one such conversion in the article, I now think I could live with providing mixed units. However, after studying the template documentation for some time, I am not even sure the templates supports such a conversion? If you know how to do this, please feel free to change the conversion yourself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel

[edit]

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

  • The Paleoenvironment section is only one paragraph long. This is awfully short for an FA; I'm wondering if this could be upped to two? Surely there's info out there on the non-dinosaurian biota of the formation?
I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Early Cretaceous epoch" - While technically correct, this is rather unusual for dinosaur articles, perhaps change to "the Early Cretaceous period"
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus is classified as a member of the Dicraeosauridae," shouldn't this be "The genus is classified as a member of Dicraeosauridae," (without the "the")?
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its environment resembled a braided river system." Was it not actually a braided river system?
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the history section:

  • Perhaps spell out what CONICET means?
Done.
  • I wonder if the information about the formation could be located next to the information about the locality, and that about the museum next to the part in the lab. It feels a bit awkward right now.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinosaur and genus are not linked on first mention. Then again, I don't think that anything would be lost by removing them here.
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, as well as" I think an "and" is missing here
I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • Angular should be linked (perhaps also glossed, same with surangular)
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention keratin in the text?
Done.
  • "the probably sixth of Brachytrachelopan," The probable sixth?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

  • "which is named after the whip-like tail" Perhaps pluralize tail?
Corrected.
  • Link US and Tanzania
added.
I intentionally restricted myself to the genera recognized by the two studies discussed. Those two genera have been proposed as Dicraeosaurids by a single study but this does not seem to be widely accepted yet. I'm not sure if it will help the reader to include this detail that is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, these two taxa are rather tenuous. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues." This makes it sound like this study's definitive, but I doubt that this will be the last word on the subject, considering that Gallina et. al.'s topology had been recovered by many previous analyses. Perhaps add "in their study" after "Dicraeosauridae" to clarify?
Sure, this was not indented. Reworded.

And palaeobiology:

  • Optional: "soft part anatomy" -> "soft tissue anatomy"
Hmm, "soft-part anatomy" is the common term used in the field, and as long as readers can understand it, I would prefer to keep it.
  • "horn sheath" Shouldn't this be "horny sheath" like elsewhere, as these structures weren't horns?
Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gallina and colleagues suggested that the spines of Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus might have been 50% longer than indicated by their bony core." - Was there any particular reasoning for this figure? Since the previous examples were 100% and 25%, this just seems random at the moment.
They cite an upcoming paper, which has not been published yet. I adjusted the wording slightly, including the word "speculating".
  • "Due to its forward bent" -> "Due to its forward bend"?
Of course.
  • "how frequently teeth are shed and replaced" Perhaps specify that this is specifically about Bajadasaurus. Also, "are" should probably be changed to "were", given the context.
Added.
  • Optional: "in the dentary; these values are similar" -> "in the dentary. These values are similar"
Changed.

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is! Thanks for those throughout comments so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While still redlinks, the Quintuco and Picún Leufú Formations could probably be linked, given that Mendoza Group is, too.
Ok, linked.
Done.
  • "At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation by an unconformity (sedimentation hiatus) that has been dated at 134 mya (million years ago)." What exactly does the date here refer to, the Agrio Formation, Bajada Colorada, the unconformity or something else? Also, it seems like a unconformity's a boundary between layers, not a layer itself.
Very good point. I don't think you can directly "date" a unconformity in the first place. I guess those dates were rough estimates. I think it is better to remove that date, and did so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tetanurans" currently links to a genus of fly
fixed.
  • Link theropod
done.

And that's all from me! It's mostly just issues with links for this section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, you found a lot of ugly errors. All done now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I forgot about this! My only remaining criticism is that it could be made clear the angular's the upper hind mandibular bone and the surangular is the lower, but other than that, I have no qualms. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slate Weasel. Having thought about the remaining point, I would prefer to keep the explanation as concise as possible. The situation is actually a bit more complex; the angular overlaps the surangular, so it is not really "the lower" of these bones, it only looks like this in side view. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I'll support then. (I've never actually supported an FAC before, so hopefully this is the correct way to do it!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM

[edit]
Found just one, which I fixed. Note that there are a lot of dublicates just because of the cladograms.
  • Image captions, complete sentences need full stops.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see citations in numerical order e.g. "deinonychosaurians.[18][2] -> deinonychosaurians.[2][18]"
Puh, this would be quite a tedious effort, and after moving sections around we would have to do the same again. In principle, this is something that the wiki software should take care of, if we want it. I usually order them so that the most important (which the reader should look up first) comes first. I find this more practical than the alphabetical order, whose benefits seem to be limited to aesthetics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author initials are sometimes spaced, sometimes unspaced, I would expect that to be consistent.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any initials that are separated by spaces, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, G. S. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I could miss that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

Reading through now, please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "single large block of rock and bone wrapped in plaster." unless I'm much mistaken, it was extracted as a single block of rock and bone, and subsequently wrapped in plaster; suggest rewording; also, plaster is worth linking.
The plaster is indeed applied before extraction. You first dig around the block to separate it from surrounding rock as best as possible, and then you apply plaster to the top and sides of the block. When it is hard, the block can be heaved up (and separated from the basement) with heavy equipment, and the plaster will make sure it won't break apart. I reworded to make this a bit clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest scaling up the Nature figure; the map isn't legible. Also, wondering if it would be best cropped into two images, as the labels aren't very legible either.
I scaled it up. However, I would argue that with default thumb size, images in Wikipedia are almost never legible, you always have to click to read something (the other images in this article included). Splitting them up, maybe yes, but then they will take more space and I'm not sure where to put them! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel very strongly about it; most figures in science articles try to cram a lot into a small space, which is often not ideal for WP. Here, it's not enough of a problem for me to make a deal of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if "Bajada Colorada locality" is a phrase used in the sources; if not, you could omit "locality" and make the sentences about it more concise.
I'm worried that without "locality" it will be confused with the rock unit "Bajada Colorada Formation", so keeping "locality" improves clarity I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, the Nature figure and the reconstruction stack, leading to a very oddly placed section header; could the nature figure move (assuming you don't split it, as I suggest above)?
Moved it up, hope it is better know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that "bifurcated" needs clarification in the text, but as you've received a comment above asking you to put it in, I won't hold you to this.
removed to avoid excessive amounts of glosses; Wiktionary link should do the job. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "top view" have a specific meaning in paleontology? If so, it should be linked or explained; otherwise, "viewed from above" or similar would be more idiomatic, I think
"Top view" is some awkward term we "invented" to avoid the actual technical term, which is "dorsal view". I took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " featured a rearwards extending process" unless I'm mistaken, "process" here is not the common English usage, and should be linked or explained.
linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the first neck vertebra, the atlas, only the upper elements, the atlantal neurapophyses, are preserved"
Is this sentence unclear? I don't see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I intended to comment on this sentence and then fixed it myself, but neglected to remove this comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely out of curiosity; why do we refer to many traits as autapomorphies of the genus, rather than synapomorphies among the species in the genus? Not a problem, just curious if there's a technical subtlety I'm missing.
Because in paleontology, we usually work with genera as the terminal taxa. In dinosaurs, species can rarely differentiated, and are almost always somewhat controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the spines, you switch from singular to plural; " it was only comparable", "their base..." - be consistent.
It was actually speaking of the halves (plural) of the spine (singular). Reworded now to make that clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gallina and colleagues recognised seven additional dicraeosaurid genera" This raises more questions than it answers...I'm assuming they're doing this by reclassifying previously known fossils, but it's not obvious if they are instead describing them. Also, how many genera were previously recognized?
I added one more introductory sentence to make this clear. The number of genera varies from study to study, and in Gallina's study, its eight genera which they think belong with the group. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "advanced" as an explanation for "derived"; unless I'm much mistaken, folks try to avoid that term these days; how about "more recently diverging from a common ancestor", which is wordy but less prone to misinterpretation?
I don't like that either actually, took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "synapomorphies (anatomical features shared with other members of the group)" this isn't a sufficient explanation, surely; they're shared derived features?
Good catch. Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this analysis, Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues" confused by this too; I haven't read the sources, but relying on your versions of the cladograms, Bajadasaurus doesn't seem to be more basal in either; the 2020 tree simply includes more taxa, relative to which Bajadasaurus is basal; but unless those taxa are placed elsewhere in the 2019 tree, is it not incorrect to say that the trees are placing Bajadasaurus differently?
The source specifically says this. And Bajadasaurus is indeed more basal in the second cladogram I think, as it is basal to Suuwassea and Lingwulong, unlike in the first cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely a misreading on my part, apologies; I thought I had carefully compared the taxa used in each, but I did not, evidently. This is fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defer to others on this, but the classification section seems to me a little too heavy on background; not much of it is specifically discussing the placement of Bajadasaurus; it's instead a discussion of the phylogeny of the family.
There is nothing more to add, but we can shorten of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could look into shortening where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one sentence for now that could be regarded excessive detail unrelated to Bajadasaurus. I'm reluctant to remove more, because 1) I think the general information helps the reader as it provides background, and 2) a reviewer above requested that I add even more such stuff, which I declined; it appears to me, therefore, that opinions differ here. Let's wait what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acting as what was compared to a fence to deter predators" very awkward wording...how about "and could therefore have been a barrier to predators"?
Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me; I found this quite interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comprehensive review, and the copy edit (I adjusted a few of your edits, hope this is fine, if not lets discuss). Please let me know if there is anything else to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support, all my comments have been addressed. Your adjustments look fine. I have one suggestion to consider going forward, about the classification section, but that doesn't preclude a support from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • I see the "~140–134 Ma " claim in the lead and infobox, but those specific numbers don't appear in the body and don't appear to be sourced
Added to the body now. This is simply a translation of "late Berriasian to Valanginian", for readers unfamiliar with the geological time scale. The official numbers are published in a table [67], which we could cite, of course. However, we would need to cite that same source in literally every paleontology article, and I don't quite see the benefit. Please let me know what you think here; it will be easy for me to add this source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; now found a direct source and added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: could you provide any more information on the original source for this?
Added detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, added. Thanks for the source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll be taking a look. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "sauropod family Dicraeosauridae." - MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues, three links in a row.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date" - Begs for an as of here, as a more complete skull of that type may one day be found.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sticks out to me that we're never given any indication of size. I understand that the skeleton is likely too fragmentary for the sources to be able to figure out overall length and whatnot, but do they at least give indications of how large the skull is or the capacity of the braincase?
Not explicitly stated in the reliable sources (discounting the children's book mentioned by the first review above). The paper gives dimensions of individual skull bones, but not sure if that helps. Their skull diagram includes a scale bar (we have that figure in the article), but again, deriving an overall skull length measurement from that would already be WP:OR I think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This pair of rod-like elements measures 58 cm (23 in) in length " - Is this measurement the length from the vertebrae base to the end of the spine, or the length of the rod-like elements from the split to the tip? At least to me, the phrasing seems to leave both interpretations open.
Specified, it is the neural spine at a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is considered self-proving, but it seems to be that several of those clades in the infobox need citations.
Hm, no other article about life forms does this as far as I know. Changing the templates (which then would affect hundreds of articles) is above my ability in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Gallina et al. attempt to determine if the specimen was adult or juvenile?
Probably adult given the fused neurocentral sutures, but not mentioned in the paper, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it looks okay to me, although I'm very much a nonexpert. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Let me know if there is anything else I can improve. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, 1b seems to be met from a nonexpert's perspective as well. Didn't check for the other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment - @FunkMonk, Esculenta, The Rambling Man, Nikkimaria, and Dunkleosteus77: Anything further to add? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review, so I refrained from doing a full FAC review, but I think the article looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crispclear

[edit]

I didn't check the sources to see if they were accurately cited or if the article complied with the house style, but it is generally well-written, comprehensible to a lay reader, and seems about as comprehensive as it can be for a few old bones. It does track away to more general theorizing in places but I think that's helpful for context. Crispclear (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • @The Rambling Man: can I get your opinion on this oppose, please? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently "I accept your opinion, but I don't think I can add any more parentheses without cluttering the text too much" means no further action will be taken to address my actionable oppose, so it's still an oppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider this oppose actionable, because 1) TRM stated that he himself thinks that wiki links are enough in some difficult cases, but that "rules are rules". It does not make much sense to me to make a change that we both think will not necessarily improve the article. 2) I don't think that the article is actually violating this rule; the rule says "explain when feasible", and so I did, but explaining "phylogenetic analysis" (a central term in biology) would necessitate a whole new sentence of its own, which clutters the article to such a degree that I am likely to violate other rules instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An example: holotype is used and linked but there's no explanation as to what a holotype is. To find out I have to click to another article. Also, it's not reasonable to allow "central terms" in one particular subject a free pass to go unexplained, but not in other subjects I'm afraid. Especially when they are far more likely to be widely unknown in challenging fields like biology. Either this nuance of MOS is enforced, as it has been previously, or it is not enforced, in which case it should be acknowledged that that is now the case for all other candidates. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed exactly what wiki links are for. And same story with holotype; explaining it will get wordy, and no other dinosaur FA I can think of tries to explain it. It is also not pertinent to understand this term in order to understand the article; you just have to know it is a category of specimens. It is really a side note added for completeness sake, and providing extensive explanation here would draw the attention away from the important bits of the article. Consequently, people might argue that with such excessive explanations, the article will fail, or at least not fully comply with FA criterion 1.a "well-written"; at least I would see it this way. Hence I consider the oppose not actionable. I'm happy to take suggestions how to word an explanation concisely so that it is in adequate proportion to the significance of the information it aims to explain; but at the moment I don't see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's definitely actionable. You (like me) are choosing not to action it. I understand that the "well-written" criterion conflicts with this (I have no idea how a cricket FAC would ever pass nowadays), but I don't make the rules, it's just important that they are followed evenly across FACs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth: It doesn't look like TRM and myself are arriving at any resolution in this discussion here. Would you please take a look again? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree. I'm looking for standards to be consistent at FAC, so I will be very interested to see how this goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a doctrinal discussion and probably has wider significance than just the award of FA to this article, but my 2p-worth is that you have to strike a balance between explaining every slightly unusual term and allowing the writing to flow. I think this article gets it about right. It's fairly stodgy subject matter for non-specialists and, with the best will in the world, most people are going to gloss over the majority of it without worrying about holotype, gracile, etc. Specialists, of course, should already be au fait with the terminology. Crispclear (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I reviewed this, I thought this was an extremely understandable article, and that the writer did an excellent job in many places of balancing linking/glossing with not making the text so cluttered as to be hard to read. I understand why TRM has concerns, but I personally think this meets that criteria. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and others think it's fine too, but as I've been informed, it's not a vote. So while your personal opinion is interesting here, this is about my opinion, and an actionable oppose based on standards set earlier this year still stands. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article does a good job of writing clearly without excessive jargon. I respect TRM's work but I increasingly think these opposes are WP:POINTy and should be disregarded by the coordinators. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for the personal attack. This isn't about "pointedness" this is about consistency. If it's expected of some articles to explain plain English dictionary definitions and opposition is maintained as a result, there's even more reason to object to the tacit acceptance of highly technical words that aren't used in plain English (such as holotype). Once the standard has been set by a co-ord and then steadfastly maintained by the other two co-ords, I don't understand why this article with its unexplained and context-free use of jargon (albeit linked) should be exempted from that standard. Or perhaps someone can explain the difference? Consensus of others certainly didn't carry any weight previously, just the actionable oppose, of which this still remains one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, I don't think your nomination established that technical words need to be explained with plain English dictionary definitions or that unexplained jargon should be avoided. If you didn't withdraw that nom, it could have very well passed without adhering to those "expectations", which would have suggested the opposite is the expectation. Similarly, if you strike your oppose for this article and it passes, it would help establish that the opposite is expected in FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I disagree. The nomination had nine supports and one oppose based on that very issue. One of the coords refused to promote it because of one "actionable" oppose. It was not going to pass, especially when another reviewer came along asking to have terms like "equalise" explained. Funny how that attracted so much attention and the nine supports were completely ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, as this is a technical article, it is necessarily littered with technical terms. For example, there are eight (!) unexplained technical terms in the very first sentence of the lead alone. How would that first sentence look if I would explain all of them? Explaining all terms in this article is entirely unreasonable, although I did my best to explain as many of the crucial ones as possible (including most of the examples listed by TRM). Please, let us return to common sense now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for common sense. But we either apply the same standards to all candidates (technical articles or otherwise) or we don't. Holding less technical articles to higher standards makes absolutely no sense at all. If anything it should be the other way round. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is getting silly. We can't split hairs forever in a single FAC if we think the general standards are inconsistent, or if we have been wronged in another FAC. That is pretty much WP:point. It needs to be a central discussion, not at a specific FAC. But in the end, it's a judgment call, and there will never be one way that everyone will agree on, leaving it up to the individual writers. I don't think we should be too rigid, and my impression is that TRM doesn't either, but feels it must be enforced elsewhere because it was demanded of him in one FAC, so now we're stuck in limbo until that is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really straightforward: I'm just looking for consistency. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wretchskull

[edit]

I have kept an eye on the article since January. I have some concerns about the technicality of the topic, but with all the improvements that it has received, I believe it deserves to be a FA. Excellent job! Wretchskull (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: will this be closed soon? Therapyisgood (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]

@Jens Lallensack:Regarding the technical terms that The Rambling Man commented about, perhaps would footnotes like these on Huaynaputina help when you can't explain the concept in-text w/o a long digression? Otherwise, going through WP:WIAFA top-to-bottom:

  • 1a: Assuming that "the CONICET" is the correct formulation, it looks like the prose fits.
  • 1b: Seems like all important aspects [that we can infer] are covered and there is some context too.
  • 1c: Seems like a very large proportion of the (sparse) research on this dinosaur that shows on Google Scholar has been used, so I'd say it fits too. Inlines used throughout.
  • 1d: As far as I can tell this fits.
  • 1e: Nothing problematic in this regard, here.
  • 1f: Dropped a couple of sentences into Google, and nothing came up that might be a copyvio.
  • 2: With the caveat that I am not going to memorize the entire WP:MOS, it looks like the parts specifically mentioned in WP:WIAFA fit.
  • 3: Seems to fit, based on the images I checked.
  • 4: Fits.

Thus a slightly conditional support from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regarding the use of footnotes to address TRM's oppose, I have these thoughts:
  • Footnotes, like links, require a click to access the information. So I wonder if they would fulfill TRM requirements, as he complains about having to click on the link. And because of this reason, footnotes seem redundant unless you print the article out.
  • Footnotes may occasionally be useful, but are not suited to explain every term (which is what is demanded here). The lead of your example (Huaynaputina) has two terms explained with footnotes, but I count more than 10 additional unexplained terms. I think nobody wants a footnote list that might eventually rival the length of the main text of the article. For this reason I consider TRM's oppose simply not actionable (because what he demands is clearly not wanted, not even by himself). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a coordinator decision here? It is pretty odd that this particular article should suffer from being the battleground for a wider issue. Not sure why paleontology articles are always the ones being singled out, ship articles (as well as many other kinds of articles), such as the current FAC Deutschland-class battleship, have exactly the same problem, but it is rarely demanded that every single technical naval term is explained in-text. Casemates? Embrasures? Water-tube boilers? Reichstag? All these linked terms are probably not understandable to layreaders. Should they all be glossed? Probably not. But following the logic here (and the course of action through many months now across FAC), if this FAC fails, Jens Lallensack should immediately move on to the ship article and oppose until all these terms are glossed, which is ridiculous. So please, let's give it a rest, The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild should continue this battle on a talk page instead of in FAC space. Otherwise this cycle of tit-for-tat opposes will only continue to disrupt FAC. It is now clear as day that this is a WP:point issue; TRM doesn't actually want these changes, but he wants Gog to admit he was wrong for opposing his football FAC for lack of glossing.[68][69] Until Gog budges, it'll just continue, and the rest of us will remain hostages (I know Jens is feeling pretty drained by this situation, let's not drive more content writers away). We get it, I have sympathy for the case, but it's getting disruptive. Lets move on. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This case is probably so exceptional that I'll take the liberty to ping the rest of the coordinators, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking anyone to "admit" anything, I want consistency to be applied to each and every candidate. Simple. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any FA about a highly technical topic that explains all technical terms, as is demanded here. So far with your consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the very definition of WP:point. "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't understand what you've said really. I noted a bunch of things I didn't understand and felt needed explanation within the article, just as was demanded of a highly non-technical article. I asked for exactly the same thing. I didn't ask for anyone to admit anything. I haven't read the battleship article yet, but if, as we have been required to do, jargon and technical terms needs to be explained within the article, then so be it. We can't just have people enforcing MOS selectively on one type of article and not another. And no, I can't get blocked for opposing a FAC. That's just stupid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you only started on this crusade after Gog's oppose at this soccer FAC.[70] In that FAC, you said "I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind. I won't be adding a glossary of terms for basic English here". So you yourself refused to do the glossing, while complaining it wasn't done elsewhere, and withdrew the nom because you refused to gloss "away goals". Jump a few months forward, and now you're opposing for the exact same thing you withdrew for to prove a WP:point. Interestingly, I see you've nominated the withdrawn FAC again (1997 Football League First Division play-off Final) and "away goal" is still not glossed. So much for "consistency". If I was a total WP:dick, I'd go and oppose your nom right away for that reason alone, but hey, that would be silly and WP:pointy, right? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. You'd be the dick, as you said. By all means disrupt the place, I've got better things to do. And please, I suggest you stop bullying me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is bullying anyone, and I'm not going to oppose. But I'm simply asking for consistency from the guy who wrote "I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English" at this own FAC, and still refuses to explain the very term the last debacle revolved around... You very well know I have been cooperative when it came to your demands in the past, so these claims of "bullying" are just preposterous and uncalled for, you must know that. I have absolutely nothing against you or your article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're bullying me. It's clear and overt. Just stop it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I think we need some grown-ups in the room now. Coordinators? FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, someone to stop your incessant bullying. Talk about driving people away, good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there seems to be a lull now, perhaps we could maintain the cease-fire while I wade through all the commentary above... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting something together, bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your patience... From the top:
  • Do we have consensus to promote? Not as such, as we have a carefully considered oppose, which focusses on terms difficult to comprehend without using links.
  • Is the oppose actionable? Evidently it is in part, as much of it has already been actioned. Most of the remainder though I think is, if not non-actionable, then at least detrimental to the overall readability of the article if actioned. BTW, I note that the arguments against relying on links is that one has to click on them to get to the article in question, then return to the original article, which is disruptive to the reading experience. As someone who generally reads articles on a laptop and has Navigation Popups enabled in Preferences, I find I generally get all I need from hovering over the linked term, which is no disruption; granted, I'm not sure there is such a possibility when reading on a mobile device. Anyway, taking these terms one by one:
    • gracile -- actioned
    • Braided river -- I think based on context and the general term "braided" this should be okay
    • stage -- I don't see that the actual meaning is vital given the context
    • Holotype -- removed
    • phylogenetic analysis -- removed
    • specific name -- I think based on context this should be okay
    • braincase -- I really think this should be okay for most readers
    • prefrontal -- annoying that hovering doesn't take you direct to the link but I think context should do the trick, and if "orbit" is understandable, "prefrontal" shouldn't be so bad
    • flagellicaudatans -- actioned
    • surangular bone -- this just seems to be a particular bone with a particular odd-sounding name; even going to the linked definition doesn't say much more than that, I think context is sufficient here
    • features -- seems clear enough from the text now
  • Moving on to two other phrases that caused issue...
    • "Long bifurcated neural spines were a common feature of the group"... TRM is not the only reviewer concerned by "bifurcated", Gog raised it (and who said TRM and Gog would never agree on anything?!) as did Dunkleosteus, an editor well-versed in dinosaur articles. Jens I think you said you'd tweak this but it doesn't look like it has been unless I missed something. It happens that I know the term even as a non-expert, but only because it's used for some medical instruments I'm familiar with in RL -- I think TRM is justified in finding it a bit much for the lead, and would recommend using Gog's suggestion of "two-pronged" in its place. By all means keep "bifurcated" in the main body (perhaps with "two-pronged" in parentheses), you might also mention it and link it in the specimens image, so people can see what's meant as well.
    • "Cladogram by Gallina and colleagues"... No I wouldn't have a clue what cladogram means on its own either but given it's used as an introduction to a diagram I think it's fine, does it really matter what it actually means when we can see what it is?
  • So where does that leave us? If the "bifurcated" were actioned per above and as I think it should have been based on earlier responses, I would find TRM's oppose to have been dealt with in a reasonable manner and the article be ready for promotion (subject to my usual pre-closure checks on words to watch, duplinks, all paras ending in citations, etc, etc). I don't know if the aforementioned will satisfy TRM who, despite accusations of pointyness, is I think genuinely out for consistency, as evidenced by the fact that he's commented on many articles of late and been prepared to support most for promotion in the end, but at the same time I think FunkMonk is on the money when he suggests we have to move on, apply common sense and avoid being absolutely rigid, whether the subject is biology or sport. I'd expect us to look at TRM's re-nom of the article that kicked this off (pun unintended, honestly), and all other FACs for that matter, in the same light. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, thanks for picking this up. Regarding the issue with "bifurcated": Yes, I did explain it originally, but removed that explanation again when I got a counter from user:Varamonde (their review above) saying that this term should go without explanation. For my part, I am a non-native speaker, and for me, "bifurcated" is much more familiar than "two-pronged" (for which I needed a dictionary). We have many non-native readers, especially when it comes to dinosaur articles. But finally, I'm fine with any solution, and I just don't know what terms may be unfamiliar to native speakers. Note that user:Dunkleosteus was actually not concerned with the term if I understood correctly; he raised a different issue about the same sentence (which I fixed). So I did not have a consensus amongst reviewers I could act on. I now re-added "two-pronged" in brackets, but only in the lead, and hope that this will be acceptable to everybody. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that "surangular bone" is in fact explained by the phrase "In the hind part of the lower jaw". We can't easily get more precise than that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer who first raised the bifurcated issue, I am happy that my suggestion re its appearance in the lead has been adopted. I would prefer a similar treatment in the main body (' "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers'), but do not see this as a fatal flaw and so continue to support promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now added the explanation to the main body as well. I really don't care much about this, just trying to make everybody happy as best as possible. Hoping that we can conclude these discussions now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I also need to add that I didn't understood that TRM was concerned with "bifurcated" in the first place (I thought he was more concerned with "neural spines"). So apologies for not taking this one seriously enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all Jens, I might be wrong about where the main concern was -- I considered "neural spine" too but I think we hear things like "neural pathways" on TV occasionally so I think we could leave that alone, whereas "bifurcated" seems very specialised even though I knew the term myself. Anyway now that you've acted on the suggestions above, I'll try to get on with my final checks soonish. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (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) 6 May 2021 [71].

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll take a look at these comments presently. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I think I've addressed/responded to everything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I hope to have something soon. Epicgenius (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Epicgenius: and I hope you're well. Just wondering if you're likely to have time for a review on this one soon? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will definitely have a look today. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - Coventry being the visitors, I assume. This might have been alluded to in the previous sentence.
    I have clarified that Coventry were the away team.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the most famous 'giant-killings' in the competition's history, notable for being one of the few instances when a non-League side defeated a club from the highest tier of English football. - For some reason, I am wary of starting this paragraph with "it", especially when the next sentence also starts with "it". Additionally, when I read "notable for being one of the few instances...", I thought this could probably be condensed, e.g. "and it was one of the few instances...".
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the 1969–70 FA Cup - Would this need to contain a comma afterward, or is it not necessary in British English?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to their opponents, Sutton's players were not professional footballers, and their squad included bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks - I would rephrase "...professional footballers, and their squad..." seems like it would be better off as two thoughts, e.g. "...professional footballers; their squad..." This is hilarious, by the way, with a bunch of clerks, managers, and bricklayers beating professional footballers. Kind of like Lee Vilenski's recent nom about the 22-year-old Chinese newcomer winning a snooker tournament.
    The two points are related, obviously, but I guess it works with a semicolon so Done. I know what you mean about the craziness of this achievement... as a Coventry supporter I didn't enjoy it at the time, but 30+ years on I can certainly enjoy the spectacular achievement here; it is one of the things that makes the FA Cup a special competition.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regular crowd capacity at Sutton's Gander Green Lane ground was around 2,000 but this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match - It is not necessary to change anything here, but this seems like a large expansion. How was it accomplished?
    Ooh, it seems you've found an error here. The source says the capacity was increased *by* 2,000 to 8,000, not from 2,000. I've amended with a bit of WP:CALC so that it now says it's a 6,000 to 8,000 increase.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Good thing that was caught, then. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goalscorers Rains and Hanlan made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chat show the following Monday - To me, this seems somewhat out of place with the rest of the paragraph, which is commentary on the match. To make this relevant to the paragraph, what did Rains and Hanlan say?
    I have had a hunt around, but I can't find any clips of the Wogan appearance or details on what happened. I have, however, split the paragraph into a "player-focused" and "media-focused" reactions, with the news that Hanlan took the afternoon off for his Wogan appearance and mention of subsequent media commitments dovetailed in. Hope that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look and the new phrasing looks fine. I just believed it was a little strange to have the paragraph end like that. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In front of Norwich's largest crowd of the season, including around 6,000 visiting supporters - Does that match have a link? Maybe I did not see it.
    No, there is no article for the Norwich–Sutton game and I suspect it wouldn't be considered notable enough to merit one - only a very few individual matches rate their own page. We could, I suppose, include a link to 1988–89 Norwich City F.C. season but it seems a bit tangential to this topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sutton United held the record as - This can probably be simply "Sutton United was".
    Done (although in British English, teams are regarded as plural entities so it's "Sutton United were...")  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally forgot about that. "Sutton United were..." is fine, I was just pointing out how the preceding wording was unnecessarily long. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following year the match was voted as one of the greatest ever FA Cup matches by ESPN viewers. - I would also recommend putting this in active voice.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, mostly minor stuff. I will note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all your points addressed for now, @Epicgenius:. Thanks again for the review and please let us know of anything else you find!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I have looked and can't find any further substantive issues. I'm happy to support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]
  • Worth linking Football Association in "Football Association Challenge Cup"?
  • Coventry City is linked in the fourth paragraph of the background section but is used in the previous paragraph.
  • "this had been expanded to 8,000 for the cup match.[27][16]", not a massive issue but the refs are out of numerical order here.
  • Tony Rains' first name is used in both paragraphs of the match summary, the second usage could probably be dropped.
  • The match report doesn't seem to work for me, is it still active?
  • In the Post-match and Legacy sections, fourth round is capitalised but not in uses prior to this. Is that deliberate?

Not much I can really complain about and the points above are generally very minor. I reviewed this for GA and since then it's had further improvements at this FAC so I'm happy with the article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack I've only gone and fixed all those up, thanks so much (both for this review and the GAN), much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Modussicandi

[edit]
  • Do we need a comma after "penalty area" in "Steve Sedgley passed the ball into the Sutton penalty area allowing David Phillips to shoot past an advancing Roffey ..."?
  • "Williams offered a realistic perspective on the game" - "realistic" sounds as though this were Wikipedia's assessment since the source doesn't explicitly say his comments were realistic. Perhaps the text would represent the source more accurately if it just said "Williams admitted that ...".
  • "Luton Town, who played in the Conference Premier" - do we need to know what tier in the pyramid the Conference Premier was at the time? Or is it obvious that they're fifth-tier, too?

These points are obviously minute. I'm happy to support but let me know what you think about the above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi thanks very much for your comments, all have been incorporated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Changing to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 thanks, I've responded, perhaps you could clarify? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 cheers, done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this has sufficient support and source/image reviews, can I raise another collaborative FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2021 (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) 6 May 2021 [77].

Lisa Nowak

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness. Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work. Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

More later. ~ HAL333 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • she transferred to the Restricted Line as an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer, and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River Is the comma needed after "and"?
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty, although he continued to fly in the United States Naval Reserve. is a it of a run-on.
    Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. :) ~ HAL333 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full review for this, but I have three quick questions about the "In popular culture" section.

  • Is there a reason that this information is presented as a bulleted list rather than as prose? I have mostly seen information presented in prose rather than as a list so this section sticks out to me.
  • Do you think the Lucy in the Sky part would benefit from some minor expansion? I remember during the film's release, there was a lot of press about the film's connection with Nowak, like comments about it not including the whole adult diapers thing. I suggest this as I think having a little more information would make this seem less trivial.
  • Continuing off my second point, what makes these entries non-trivial and relevant enough to be included? I have never personally worked on a section like this, and I know there are Wikipedia essays like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content specifically about this. I'm not saying that these parts should be removed (as I believe the coverage around Lucy in the Sky makes it non-trivial for instance), but I was curious on your point of view about this.

Apologies for the drive-by comments. These are just a few questions I had about a specific section. I am glad to see this in the FAC space as it is such a huge part of pop culture and recent history. And I'm a native Floridian so something about reading about NASA-related subjects is oddly nostalgic for me. Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! Short reviews are always welcome! Especially from editors who aren't part of the usual suspects. (They deserve a break,) To address the issues you raised:
  • I originally did have the section in prose. MOS:PROSE: Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. However, WP:TRIVIA says: This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format but MOS:POPCULT says: If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. In any case, it was changed to a bulletted list by PCPLUM118 with this edit
  • Thank you for the links to the different areas in the Manual of Style. I always enjoy learning more about different areas of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in the links. I will leave the prose/list part to your judgement. I wanted to ask as it was something that drew my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't finished watching Lucy in the Sky; the Saints game was on. Lucy was disturbing to me, as several of the things presented in the show would have prevented the real-life incident from ever taking place. Like being interviewed by the shrink after a flight. In fact, the last time any of Nowak's class fronted a shrink was for the job interview ten years before. (The film made $55,000 from 37 theatres in its opening weekend, which was described as "terrible".)
  • It is certainly a very odd film and I am honestly quite confused on how the film was trying to handle its connection with Nowak or its tone n general. I was just curious if you think it would be helpful to add a sentence or two to expand on how the film was a loose adaption to provide some context to this. But since the other parts of this section are only one sentence each, it may put undue weight on this one pop culture reference. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short answer to your third point is that other editors thought them worthy of mention. I hate Popular Culture sections, and will ruthlessly purge anything that is not properly referenced. For more commentary on them , see WP:POPCULTURE and xkcd

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. I think this is a point that still generates a good deal of discussion. Since the citations are from third-party, reliable sources, then I think this part should be okay. Thank you for the explanations for each of my points. That clears it up for me at least, and I think the section should be fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article looks good to me. I support the article for promotion as it looks ready to me and HAL's support above also encourages me to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]
  • The lead looks a bit heavy on the links. May I suggest you drop links for "aeronautical engineering" and the second California link?
    Dropped the link to "aeronautical engineering", but there is only one "California" link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move "Born in Washington, D.C." to the second paragraph, to keep the first one focussed on the key items.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 2010 --> since this date is different from the others, it drew my attention to dates .. is it really neceassary to have the exact date 3 times in the lead? It somehow makes it seem realy important to me if you say February 5, 2007. Like September 11, 2001. I would think February 2007, March 2007, November 2009 are sufficient.
    Reduced the dates in the last paragraph lead to month/year or year only, matching the first two paragraphs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the January of her junior year of high school -> I'm not a native speaker, so it may very well be just fine, but to my foreign ears this "the January" sounds odd
    It's fine; leaving the article out would be incorrect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • those women that did so were often resented by men who were passed over --> I don't have access to the source, but just checking if this is the author summarising research or the author's opinion?
    She doesn't have footnotes, but is summarising published research. The whole thing blew up in what is called the Tailhook scandal, which generated a great deal of material. There is no evidence that Nowak was personally affected, but it would be far more surprising if she wasn't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 2006, it mission was rescheduled --> the mission I presume?
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a host of problems --> that doesn't strike me as the right tone here. Maybe just problems?
    Changed to "multiple". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • prelaunch and pre-launch are both used. I would go for pre-launch
    Standardised on "prelaunch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8.0 million kilometers (5×106 mi) --> I couldn't see on MOS:NUM that this is the right way to do it. I think "8 million kilometers (5 million mi)"
    A matter of fiddling with the {{convert}} template. Changed to "8 million kilometers (5 million miles)"
  • Nowak (center) and the rest of the STS-121 crew inspects --> no final s
    The final s is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that caption also needs a full stop. Three of the other captions as well, they seem full sentences to me.
    Full stops added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the end but shall have to look at the sources another time. I found the article interesting and easy to read. Well-written and informative. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: a few questions:

  • #26: LinkedIn is misspelled. For which part of the sentence is it needed? (Sorry, I don't have access to #27 so can't see for myself)
    Reorganised so the relevant piece is separate. It reads: "Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty." It is sourced from his LikedIn profile. Per WP:RSPSRC: "should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description".
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is probably more strict: I'm thinking more along the lines of the spelling of one's middle name. Job titles and job descriptions are most prone to be embellished, and in this case, with prestigious NASA, even more so. I welcome views from more experienced FAC source reviewers, but if they fail to materialise, I would suggest that if you either try to find an alternative, more reliable source, or you simply drop this sentence. I don't think that would weaken the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is less strict. In this case, all it provides is exact dates. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #141: Vice.com is listed as No consensus on WP:RSPSRC. Is there a better source?
    Added an additional reference from Dazed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #143: appears to be a user-generated site. Is there a better source?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources seem ok. I hope to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spot check: I don't have access to the Fanning and Moore books, so I just picked a few other random ones:

  • #67: (Orlando Sun): ok
  • #76 (CNN): "handwritten" is mentioned but it was not the request that was handwritten. I didn't see anything that confirmed "Shipman referred to Nowak as an acquaintance of her boyfriend, but did not identify Oefelein".
    It is in the next reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #72 (NYT): does not mention "senior active duty Naval Officer in the NASA Astronaut Corps", and "Chief of the Astronaut Office". It also says that it was the state's assistent attorney who argued the facts.
    Also appears in a following reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #81 (orlando Sent): it only says "second bite out of the apple". I don't think we can say "unhappy that Nowak had been granted bail, pressed more serious charges solely to keep her in jail." based on just this source
    Same again. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #82 (AP): ok
  • the second paragraph in Altercation has 6 sentences, but all of its references are at the end. Can you distribute them a bit better?
    Actually, only two of the four cover the paragraph; the other two are primary documents added for the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stop here. I think you need to check each sentence of the Airport Incident. I suspect all the sources are there for the story as a whole but it may be you need to add more references per sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I checked the whole second paragraph in Altercation. All fine. Also checked #77,#104,#120. All ok. Spotcheck passed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lawrence Khoo

[edit]
  • Generally well sourced, and neutrally written.
  • The lead sentence lists 5 different jobs. Some of those roles may not be notable, and a couple may be redundant. Please review WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on what to list in the lead sentence.
Nowak is notable as an astronaut, although if she were not, she may have still been as a test pilot or naval officer. These are noteworthy and covered at length in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all these roles are covered in the lead, I think they should stay. However, I think she's most notable as an astronaut, so I would put that role first. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment I was asked to take a look at this but as the matter appears resolved will not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Would you be willing to do a quick review? The review has lots of comments but only one formal support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence in the last paragraph of the lead about what she is doing today, would not be amiss.
Unfortunately, all we have is that she works in the private sector. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LK (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still having problems with the lead sentence. If I understand correctly, "naval flight officer" and "test pilot" were roles she held as United States Navy captain. As written, it implies that those are 3 different careers. Suggest something like "... is an American aeronautical engineer, former NASA astronaut, and United States Navy captain, working as naval flight officer and test pilot." LK (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed different careers. She never actually performed them while she was a captain because she was promoted to that rank after she became an astronaut. Still trying to think of a wording that works. Note that the rank is different from the USAF one. I would have written "US Air Force Capitan" but then we have the problem of three blue links in a row again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I feel she is best described as a "former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain", as those other roles were undertaken as part an parcel of being NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. The other roles can be expanded on subsequently. Something like "... is a former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain, who worked as aeronautical engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." How's that sound? I think it's best to avoid making it seem like she had 5 different careers. LK (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clumsy, but it may work. Changed as suggested. As long as it is understood that she did have five different careers: naval flight officer, test pilot, astronaut, navy captain and aeronautical engineer, in that order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's correct to say that she had five careers. For example, if a person only ever held one job, such as Professor of Sociology at a public university, but as part of her job, she wrote academic papers, authored books, sat on administrative committees, and lectured classes, one would not say that the person had multiple careers. One should not state that the person was a Professor of Sociology, a writer, an author, an administrator, and a lecturer. See WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on this.
I'd note that for the Nowak article, the article body currently divides her career into two sections, Naval and NASA. Since the lead should reflect the content in the body, I think it's appropriate for the lead sentence to imply that she has had two careers. LK (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is the right place to hash it out, but the current lead sentence is a mess. If I understand the situation correctly, she has only ever had two employers, the US Navy and NASA. The Navy employed her as an aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot. NASA employed her as a flight controller (not notable) and astronaut. She was fired from both jobs, and will not return to those roles. Her post discharge career is not notable, so we needn't mention it in the lead paragraph. The question is, how to accurately reflect that in one sentence. My preference would be for "... is a former NASA astronaut and former US Navy captain, who worked as aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." Alternatively, she can be described as "... a former astronaut, aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot, who was NASA mission specialist and US Navy Captain." This implies that she had four notable careers, and notes the two highest ranks she held. LK (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA did not employ Nowak as a flight controller; it employed her husband as a flight controller. She was only seconded to NASA and remained a naval officer the entire time. The Navy did not employ her as an aerospace engineer; that has been her post-Navy career. It is not notable (ie worthy of an article in its own right) but it is noteworthy, and another editor argued strongly for its inclusion. As noted already, Nowak is not a former aerospace engineer; she is currently one. The Navy employed her as a naval flight officer and then as a test pilot. This is not part an parcel of being a naval officer; few naval officers pursue these career paths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, would it be accurate to state that "Lisa Marie Nowak ... is a aerospace engineer, and former NASA astronaut and US Navy captain. While in the Navy, Nowak worked as naval flight officer and test pilot. ..." Is that correct? I'll edit the article to show you what I mean, feel free to change as necessary. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US Air Force doesn't need to be linked. In fact, looking at it, the lead is a little overlinked. Per MOS:OVERLINK, words that most English speakers would understand usually should not be linked. LK (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "captain" is not one of them, so changed to "U.S. Air Force captain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the bullet point list "In popular culture" section. MOS discourages trivia sections populated with bullet point lists. See MOS:CULTURALREFS and WP:POPCULTURE. It suggests folding the content into the body of the article, and writing about cultural references with flowing text. If this is too much trouble for now, the bullet list could be moved to the talk page and formatted for inclusion in a properly written Cultural References section. LK (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not applies here. As noted elsewhere on this page, I wrote it in prose with flowing text, and it was rewritten into its current point form by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be rewritten as prose? Since FA's are held to a higher standard, I believe they should not include sections formatted in a way that MOS advises against. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7: Any response to LK's comment immediately above? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until the issue below was resolved. Rewritten as prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For BLP privacy reasons, I highly suggest that this article not be added to the today's featured article queue, even if promoted to FA. Since the subject of the article is no longer a public figure, it would not be appropriate to throw the spotlight on her again. LK (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and while attracting a reasonable amount of comment has only one support. I will add it to urgents, but it may be an idea for you to contact those who have commented so far to see if they are able to support promotion, or have further comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • Perhaps given the limited length of Google previews, and the brief period many of our readers spend here, the opening paragraph should contain some hint of her notoriety for the circumstances that got her sacked as an astronaut, since that is what probably she is best known for. I do not wish it, of course, to overshadow a distinguished career in the service of the United States to that point.
    What do you suggest? Something like "Was dismissed from NASA after an incident in 2007"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing" was the landing televised? I thought what people saw was Armstrong walk on the Moon.
    Hmmm Looks like it was recorded on 16 mm. Changed to "Moon mission". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The STS-121 mission was originally scheduled for March or April 2005, but was postponed to July. During the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery for STS-114 in July 2005, debris had separated from the external tank, which previously had caused the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia." The timeline here feels a little unclear.
    Tweaked the wording a little. The chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was more challenging to operate than the one of the Space Shuttle, since it was larger and had an additional joint.[57]" I might change "of" to "on".
    Changed as suggested. I think I used "of" because it was not always carried. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early police reports claimed that she wore Maximum Absorbency Garments during the trip, but she later denied this.[69][70]" "Claimed" implies disbelief, and we only have Nowak's word. I would suggest "stated".
    Changed as suggested. Disbelief is indeed what I have, although I didn't write it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with concerns expressed about NASA's astronaut selection and screening process and planned 30-month missions to Mars.[88][89]" This is awkwardly phrased.
    Deleted the phrase about Mars to tighten the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Policies at NASA were changed in a variety of ways: flight surgeons would receive additional training in psychiatric evaluation, and although there was an unofficial code of conduct in place, an official "Code of Conduct" would be written up for employees.[94]" I'm rather surprised by this as according to the congressional hearings into the Apollo 15 covers incident, NASA promulgated Standards of Conduct applicable to all employees including astronauts on October 21, 1967.
    Doesn't match the source so rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plastic gloves, contacts, cash, an umbrella, and black sweats." Does contacts mean contact lenses?
    The source says "On 'Flight controller’s Log' note paper, Nowak listed more than two dozen items, such as black sneakers (8-9), plastic gloves, contacts, cash, umbrella and black sweats."
  • "On May 11, 2007, authorities released a surveillance video from the Orlando International Airport terminal purporting to show Nowak waiting for nearly an hour, standing near the baggage claim, then donning a trench coat and later following Shipman after she retrieved her bags.[100]" The underlying source does not say purporting. It identifies Nowak definitely.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowak retired from the Navy with the rank of commander on September 1, 2011.[123]" I thought she was discharged other-than-honorable?
    Correct. Changed to "She retired from the Navy with an other than honorable discharge and the rank of commander" 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The article relies quite heavily on the Fanning book for details of Nowak's life prior to "the incident", and then on news sources for details of the incident and aftermath. Can you explain the approach to sourcing?
    It reflects the way the article was developed, which was in three phases. Originally it was based on NASA sources, the standard ones about any astronaut, along with an interview with Nowak. After the 2007 incident, editors added a plethora of information about it from news sources. Finally, I came through, expanding the other sections of the article to give it a proper balance. Much of this was based Fanning's book; Moore's was not yet published. This is normal for biographical articles; only the most famous people have more than one biography. The workings of the Matthew effect mean that the ones with biographies already are likely to get more, but those lacking are likely to miss out. I did not want to rely too heavily on Fanning, so used other sources where available. Much of the incident section could also have been sourced from Fanning too, but it was all properly sourced, or so I thought, so I left it in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there differences in either details or weighting between Fanning and Moore? Had the "incident" section been written after these publications, would that have changed how it is described? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fanning's book is more richly detailed. There has been no reappraisal or reinterpretation of the events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lawrencekhoo and Hawkeye7: You seem to be missing the point. Whether or not a source is reliable is not the issue. The question here is [always] does the article meet the FAC criteria. In this case the requirement that all "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). Evidencing that a source is reliable is fine, but there is also a requirement for all FA sources to be high quality. Can you establish that the sources being challenged are high quality? If not they shouldn't be in an FAC. And the onus for establishing that each and every source used in an FAC is high quality is entirely with the nominator; if they are not confident that they can do so for any, they should not be using them. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "high-quality" is undefined and largely meaningless, and cannot be positively established. As you yourself pointed out above, it is not "entirely with the nominator", but is determined by the consensus of the reviewers, which we have both here and at RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not married to that particular statement, and I believe neither is Hawkeye7. If you think Vice should not be used as a source in a FA, let's just remove the statement and be done with it. Although, I'd note that Vice has been used in FAs (as in Gwen Stefani). LK (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FAC coordinators: It is not in the article! And nobody has said it is not acceptable. Responsibility for determining whether "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" is not the responsibility of the nominator; it is the responsibility of the coordinator. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than eight weeks since this was nominated and it seems to have reached an impasse over sources. Unless this is broken over the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources in question are not used in the article, and no one has said there is any problem with the sources that are used. The consensus here and at RSN is that the sources in question are indeed reliable, but I emphasise that they are not used in the article at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you again, but given the assurances that any sources which have had their bone fides as high quality (being reliable is, obviously, a given) questioned are no longer used I wonder if you could run your eyes over this again. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

[edit]

There's plenty here to comment on but I'm wary that I'll be wasting my time if the "issue" around the sourcing above has not been resolved satisfactorily. If someone can let me know, I won't put my energy into it if it's about to be closed (just as the Accolade (company) FAC was closed within an hour of me spending a considerable amount of time reviewing it, even though it had already gained the support of a co-ord....) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, support by (recused) coords carry the same weight as any other review, no more. The length of time Accolade had been open with two recent sets of concerns (yours among them) made archiving the appropriate course; your commentary there is not wasted, the nominator can and should take them into account before another try at FAC. In this case I think the outstanding sourcing issue was minor and I've in fact dealt with it myself (unless I'm missing something, Nikki) and I was ready to promote until I saw your placeholder. So comment away here, the nom isn't going away yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found it troubling that someone charged with assessing suitability of nominations supported one which was summarily archived, that was bothersome. In any case, glad to know that (this time) I won't be wasting my time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that while the chances of the article has Buckley's hope being promoted, you won't be wasting your time. I will address any issues you have. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she was there, there were.." there there, not sparkling, maybe "during her secondment, there were" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so half the jobs in the Navy" exactly half the roles in the US Navy were combat assignments?
    Approximately half, per our usual conventions on rounding. Wording follows the source. All jobs were opened in 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of talent or ability" really saying the same thing.
    A talent is an inate skill; an ability is a demonstrated one. Changed to "aptitude or ability" to get the point across more clearly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "training women for jobs they could not do" more "they were not permitted to do".
    Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resented by men who were passed over" do you mean "resented by the men who had been passed over as a consequence" or simillar?
    I don't want to say that. They were not accepted for flight training because they were not good enough, but often saw their chances diminished by places being taken by better-qualified women. Some would have been disappointed even if women were not admitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned flight training twice before "primary flight training" which is then linked and redirects to US Naval Aviator...
    That's useless. unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued at Corry Station" is there a reason that this isn't referred to as "Center for Information Warfare Training"?
    That name was not adopted until 2016. Added its name back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grumman EA-6 Prowler, " in the lead this was an EA-6B Prowler.
    Changed to EA-6B Prowler
  • " to the Restricted Line as an" this needs in-article explanation.
    It is explained: it says she became an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer. All women became restricted line at the point where their careers specialised, due to the restriction on combat roles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and EA-6B." overlinked.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "logged over 1,500 hours of flight time in over 30 " same here as lead, "more than 30".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The medals she was awarded, are these just like "you served some time, here you go" medals or are they contingent on specific actions or achievements?
    Somewhere in between. Closer to the former than the latter usually, although the latter is possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Astronaut Office, " this redirects, so it's meaning in this context is unclear to me.
    The Astronaut Office is the administrative body at the JSC that controls the activities of astronauts. It's part of the Flight Operations Branch. It's not the same as the Astronaut Corps, which consists of all astronauts, some of whom are seconded to other parts of NASA, or sometimes even to other government organisations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Space Shuttle's" you've mentioned the Shuttle a few times already so this is an odd time to link it.
    Linked on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got "robotic arm" and "robot arm" both linked to different targets, there's something of an element of surprise to that because they appear synonymous.
    Changed one to "Space Shuttle's robotic arm". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three small children." not sure about "small" here, young perhaps.
    Changed as suggested. Two were babies and one was nine years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Hobaugh" you already mentioned him (and linked him) but last time included his middle initial. Either be consistent or (as I would think) drop the first name on

subsequent mentions as long as it's not ambiguous to whom you refer.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 25 April 2021 (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 May 2021 [78].

Battle of Heraklion

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN and ACR. The second Battle of Crete article from me, following on from the recent Battle of Rethymno. All suggestions for improvement gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria, I had completely missed that. Now paraphrased and cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • No Royal Air Force (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete until April 1941, but airfield construction had begun, radar sites built and stores delivered. This sentence is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
Gah! One removed.
  • The Imperial's steering gear broke down at about 03:45[84] and her crew and complement of soldiers had to be taken off at sea, at night, and she was then sunk. Scuttled?
I have added the Wikilink, but would prefer to keep the more straight forward description, rather than swap it for a less readily understood technical term.
  • Any info on attempts to rebuild Heraklion following the German air raids?
That is a very good point. I have not seen anything, but I shall research it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misunderstood the query. The German air raids were more or less continuous from early May to when they overran the airfield. However, I have added, as the very final paragraph, some information on the airfield's role during the rest of the war and its use since.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle and thanks for your comments so far. All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I altered the cite on one of the airport factoids but everything else is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99

[edit]

I offer my comments as a way to beg you to comment on my FAC c:

truflip99, many thanks for reviewing, although a request on my talk page is frequently sufficient to elicit a review. What is your current FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy reading your military articles anyway. It is MAX Orange Line. Thanks a million! --truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Background

  • {defended Heraklion port and airfield against a German paratrooper attack -- link Paratrooper?
Oops. Done.
  • following Germans attacks against -- German*
Fixed.
  • The Italians were repulsed without the aid of the expeditionary force. -- for clarity's sake, repulsed by whomst?
I had assumed that it would be pretty clear to a reader that it was by the country they had invaded. I have added "by the Greeks", although it looks a little "statement of the bleeding obvious" to me.
  • Hitler was concerned about attacks on the Romanian oil fields from Crete -- comma after this
Only if one uses serial (aka Oxford) commas. I don't.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa." -- full stop after quotes
Not if the full stop is in the original. See MOS:INOROUT "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material".

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

  • In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece -- comma necessary?
Removed.

Germans

  • The German assault on Crete was code-named "Operation Mercury" (Unternehmen Merkur) -- curious why you opted with "English" (German) rather than alternative
Cus that's how the sources handle it, and because this is the English language Wikipedia. But I can see the logic of reversing it, and will if you think that would read better.
Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, you are doing it correctly. But I'm just really torn on "Operation Mercury". It would seem appropriate to switch just this but I won't get hung up on it.
  • This force totalled approximately 3,000 men[30] -- consider moving the ref at the end?
Why? It means that the cite is then after text which it doesn't support and causes anyone who wants to check the referencing or read more about that snippet to do twice as much work.
Wikipedia:Inline citation, but I see your point
  • ... Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong. -- there is an earlier instance of the word garrison that should be wikilinked instead
I know. The earlier version was the verb, so I skipped it. Quite happy to link it instead of the noun if you feel that woould be better pracrice.
  • The design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them... -- there could also be an earlier instance of the word parachute
I have linked parachute assaults to "Airborne assault", so the currently linked "parachute" is the first unlinked mention.
  • This precluded their jumping with any weapon larger than a pistol or a grenade. -- link pistol and grenade (there is a later wikilink of grenade that needs to be omitted)
Done.
I beklieve that "rifle" is common enough not to need linking, automatic firearm linked.
  • Each aircraft could lift thirteen paratroopers -- use numeral? MOS:NUMERAL (you also use "13 captured Italian field guns")
Done.

A bit slow to comb through this, promise I'll get there. --truflip99 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, no worries, there is no rush and your input is much appreciated. Your points so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • "which were to have consequences for their attack on Heraklion" -- can't you just say "which had"? since you pretty much explain it in the next sentence(?)
I can. Done.
  • "They were blanketed with dust clouds" -- how?
Expanded. At a possible risk of "going into unnecessary detail".
  • "In the event the attacking bomber and fighters ran low on fuel and departed before the paratrooper transports arrived." -- this reads like a fragment sentence
Sorry. I am possibly too close to it, but I really can't see in what way.
... says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Is there some other part which overrides this?
  • "providing a succession of easy targets for Allied anti-aircraft guns. During this period no German fighters nor bombers returned to suppress the ground fire. A total of 15 Ju 52s were shot down.[43] Before the Germans had completed their drop Chappel had already committed his reserve battalion and tanks to a counter-attack." -- there's an earlier instance of the word tanks in this section; I would just omit the link since you link light tanks and infantry tanks early on
Good spot. Thanks. Fixed.
  • " "to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat", " -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion of the 85th Mountain Regiment (II/85)" -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "had loaded onto commandeered Greek caiques at Piraeus" -- ciaque links to a bird
Ah. The umlaut was removed at the request of an earlier reviewer and I didn't realise that changed the target. Thanks for spotting. Fixed.
OK.
  • "Wary of the Allied naval patrols," -- omit comma?
Omitted.
  • "The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash
Omitted.
  • " facing large bands of Cretan partisans," -- is there a difference between these guys and the Cretan civilians mentioned early on?
Yes.
  • "On the 24th four companies of paratroopers were dropped west of Heraklion to reinforce the Germans[69] and the town was heavily bombed in retaliation for its non-surrender on the 21st" -- inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph
I have deliberately used different formulations to bring a bit of variation to the writing.
  • "They were further reinforced by paratroopers landing at Gournes on the 27th." -- here too.
As above.
  • "GHQ Middle East " -- acronym has not been established
Rephrased.

Almost there. --truflip99 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that truflip99. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi truflip99, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, pardon the delay I thought I had already done this. Full support. --truflip99 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm really confused lol. I thought I had completed this one really. I'll keep my support but finish reviewing it now. Unlikely that I'll withdraw it. --truflip99 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda support

[edit]

This is a completely new topic for me, but being German, I am curious. I'll skip the lead for now, needing more understanding first.

Background

  • Why is Oberkommando des Heeres italic, but Luftwaffe not? ... and "Führer Directive" looks extremely strange to me, combining German and English.
Because "Luftwaffe" has been adopted into the language, and is considered an ordinary English word. (Like flak, stuka, or Gestapo.) See Wikt:Luftwaffe.

Germans

  • I see no reason for the pic being left where it pushes out the text, which is worse with a short section header.
Moved to the right.
"Führer Directive" is used by nearly all of the sources. Bear in mind that "führer" is also an English word. Eg see Wikt:Führer.

Aftermath

  • "Due to their heavy losses on Crete the Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations during the war." I think this could also go to the lead, instead of ending there with a list of statistics.
Done.

That's it for now. Will look once more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, many thanks for looking this over. Your points above all addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses and changes. - The adoption of phrases is something I know from Latin where it's Requiem and Salve Regina, but italic when more unfamiliar. We can't help that it looks inconsistent when two of those appear close together, and it's also subject to change over time. - Right now I'm too tired for saying something useful, but will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next bits:

Lead

  • What do think of mentioning "Allies" sooner, or would every leader know?
  • Also, I'm used from other topics that the first paragraph is an overview of the whole thing, - is that different here. Just curious.
I am unaware of any requirement for this. In fact if this were to be done I would have thought that it would break the policy at MOS:LEAD. I assume that we are discussing MOS:OPEN and/or MOS:FIRST, in which case it seems to me that the first paragraph meets both.

TOC

  • I am not familiar with headers in MilHist, but confess that the TOC is not overly helpful to provide an overview. Compare this article I recently had the pleasure to review.
We may have to agree to disagree on this. The section headers seem to me to meet all of the requirements of MOS:HEAD. Specifically they seem "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". They - to me - accurately and adequately introduce the text they head. Reviewing them they seem fine to me; except for "Evacuation", which I have expanded to "Allied evacuation". Your comment has me puzzled. Perhaps you could indicate a header which you feel is unsatisfactory and suggest a better wording? Thanks.
It wasn't one specific header, but the impression that just from the headers, you couldn't tell the story. But see below. --GA

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those Gerda. Comments on two areas I have never had comments on before. Proof of the value of having not subject experts look at FACs. See what you think of my replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for no response sooner. I was preoccupied with my FAC, death of a fellow editor (never wrote an obit before, but nobody else began ...) and other missing. I am happy to support, - military language seems just to be shorter than about a composer's who fought other battles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX

[edit]

Hi Gog. Since you've reviewed 3 of my GANs and 1 FAC, I will do this one to return some favor.

Thanks AhmadLX, appreciated. (You write good articles.)
  • "The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks ..." and "A German invasion in April 1941 ..." The two should be combined into one sentence, with e.g. an "although" preceding the 1st one, to give better flow. Right now it is abrupt.
I am reluctant to conflate episodes more than three months apart in a single sentence. I have added some waffle to try and smooth over the perceived abruptness, see what you think.
Seems good to me.
  • "The brigade was made up of: the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment (2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle) and the 2nd Battalion ..." So "2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment" is a single unit, then why do you have 2nd battalion again?
Because the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment is a different unit from the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).
  • Actually whole of the above sentence with battalions stuff is very laborious to understand (at least for those unacquainted with military terminology, like me)
Very true. British battalions have unwieldy names. But I have to state the units involved on both sides somewhere, giving full names at first mention. Like many technical articles there are bits where the MoS - and common sense - restricts how digestible one can make some bits. That said, I would be grateful for any ideas as to how to make it less turgid.
I would suggest two things (disregard if you don't like them):
1. and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) → and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)
Good idea. Done.
2. Relegating the stuff inside brackets [(2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle), (2nd Black Watch; 867) etc. ] to footnotes.
I'm not sure that it appropriate to relegate fairly important information to footnotes. Let me think on't - I am aware that my view may be skewed by being relatively used to the convoluted names of British battalions and so the sentence reading more smoothly for me.
I have tried a couple of things: putting the complements in footnotes; pulling them out into a separate, subsequent sentence. Each has pros and cons, but on reflection, to me the present arrangement seems least bad.
  • "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft ... which resulted in a high incidence of wrist injuries." Any info on why were they required to do so?
Yes. Added. Could you check that it is not getting too repetitive.
  • "south east" and "south-east"
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
  • "When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received large quantities of weapons, ammunition and equipment, including two motorcycles with sidecars." This should be made more explicit that they were duped.
I would love to add something like "believing they were German positions". But the sources don't support it. Stating that the pilots were duped would, IMO, be OR. It may seem obvious to you and me, but if a source doesn't support this supposition, I don't see how it can be included. Ah ha, after searching around I have found a source saying the Allies were able "to confuse the pilots", so I have tweaked the sentence.
The cited source in fact says that the Britons fooled the Germans in bombing their own positions (Although I'm not sure if it is regarding this battle or a different one on Crete)
I believe that you are thinking of the Battle of Rethymno, also currently at FAC. The source cited for this incident, at Heraklion, is Beevor, p. 94:

They had learned, like their counterparts at Rethymno, to confuse the pilots of the transport planes and bombers. They laid out captured swastika flags on their positions, stopped shooting and, when the Germans fired green Very lights, they did the same. On a number of occasions, captured recognition strips produced containers with weapons, ammunition, rations and medical supplies. Sets of surgical implements were parachuted, with true German practicality, in containers shaped like coffins to provide a second use. Two outstanding examples of this military manna from heaven were a pair of motor-cycles with side-cars, one dropped to Major Sir Keith Dick-Cunyngham's company of the Black Watch and the other to the Australian battalion on the Charlies. The Australians found themselves so well provided with German weapons that large quantities could be handed over to the less fortunate Greek troops.

It obviously says that Heraklion dudes used captured flags to deceive them. Somewhere else, without naming battle, it also talks about Germans bombing their own boys, but since google version has no page numbers, I'm not sure if it refers to Heraklion or some other battle. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread Beevor, and the only reference I can find to the Germans bombing their own men is during the Battle of Rethymno, and no mention of it happening during this battle.
  • "On 23 May six Hurricanes ..." and "On 26 May, Freyberg informed ..." Several other similar instances of inconsistent comma after a time indicator (e.g. "By the end of the month, ... " and "On 30 April 1941 ...")
Thanks. I suspect someone has been "helpfully" inserting them. Removed.
  • "The embarkation went smoothly and the squadron was underway by 03:00.[81] with approximately 4,000–4,100 evacuees on board." Remove period after 03:00.
Done.
  • Duplinks: Garrison, Fighters, Middle East, Heraklion International Airport.
Fixed.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX, and thanks for that. Good stuff. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weapon containers" and "weapons containers"
Done.
  • "caïques" → "caiques"
Done.
  • "Greece became a belligerent in World War II when it was invaded by Italy on 28 October 1940.[2]" Not on the cited page.
Gah! It should have been to page 1. I can only imagine that a cut and paste was interrupted, or something equally silly. It is not as if there are not several thousand RSs from which I could have cited that. *rolly eyes*
  • "and the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island. The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks without the aid of the expeditionary force." Not on the cited page
I have no idea. I assume that I simply missed a source. It would never have been in Long, his is not that type of history, and I can't find anything in older versions of the article. As it is all uncontroversial, readily referenced stuff, I assume that my eyes just skimmed over it. I have cited it to Gilbert, as RS a general text as one is likely to get, and deleted the Ploiesti bit as duplicating the mention in the next paragraph and being a bit peripheral anyway.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa."[10] Quote in the source differs from this
Hitler did say that - but not in FD 28. I am kicking myself for conflating the two. I am a prize idiot. I have made more edits on this article than any other I have worked on and I think that I have gotten far too close to it.
  • Please verify that no other such discrepancies exist. I am not assuming bad faith here. It is just that, as I know from my own writing experience and reviews that I've conducted, it often happens that one misreads something in the source, or incorrect page (or source) is cited by mistake, or sometimes moving around material creates discrepancies.
Gog, I need response to this and "and the Ploiești oil fields" before I support. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AhmadLX and apologies for the very long delay. Your concerns above all addressed. Sourcing: I have checked a high proportion of the cites - over half but not all - and not found anything else I am unhappy with. Which is actually irritating, as it strains credibility that you could find several issues in the one section and the rest of the article is fine. With some trepidation I am passing it back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it insisted here at FAC to have all hyphenated ISBNs? It does affect search results (compare e.g. 9780714652054 and 978-0-7146-5205-4). What is wrong with the ISBNs as they appear in the books themselves? Just a comment, no action needed.
I always used to do that, but got comments that FAs being "Wikipedia's very best work" then ISBNs should be presented in a consistent format. (And that cites should be in number order - another pet hate of mine.) Rather than have the discussion every other FAC - and some reviewers feel very strongly about this - it is easier to just pre-emptively standardise them. I even have 'run all articles through the hyphenator' on my pre-GAN checklist these days.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi AhmadLX and thanks for the ping. I got bogged down in my source check and distracted by RL and then FAC coordinator concerns and this review slipped off my "not yet completed list". Apologies for that. I hope to wrap it up on Friday and shall ping you when I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]
Hi Heartfox, alt text added for all images except for the map of Crete, where I don't feel that alt text would add anything to the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template does provide an alt parameter; I think it could just be "refer to caption". Heartfox (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, done; although I note that MOS:ALT states "for an image that strictly repeats the information found in nearby text or in a caption ... a blank alt attribute is ideal." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing for me as well because it also says "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text."
It also says at the top of the page "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible". Given MOS:ALT is not classified as a guideline, I would personally defer to WP:CAPTION which says alt text should be given regardless (unless an image is purely decorative, of which I don't think any image in an article would be anyways... so I don't really know why that's mentioned. Why would an image be in an article if it was only decorative?) Anyways, good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

[edit]

Claiming my place here. I will, as with Battle of Rethymno FAC, make use of the Hellenic Army History Directorate's Abridged History of the Greco-Italian and Greco-German War 1940–1941 to detect potential gaps. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, I don't think we can at this stage call the Cretans 'partisans'. They were not pre-formed into any partisan bodies, but spontaneously took up arms. 'Armed civilians' is preferable IMO. PS, just as a historical curiosity, the Cretans, who were mostly Venizelist and republican/anti-monarchist, had been disarmed by the Metaxas Regime following an abortive revolt in 1938. So the civilians who attacked the German paratroopers were usually 'armed' with sharp tools, until they got their hands on some German weaponry. Now imagine the Cretans had had their guns (IIRC somewhere in the region of 60,000 rifles had been confiscated) in 1941...
MacDonald goes with "partisans". I reckon that this blurs into "armed civilians" with a lot of overlap, but I take your point and have changed both mentions.
  • On the opposing forces, the Abridged History (p. 229) says much the same. Minor nitpicks: (4rd and 7th Regiments, not 'Battalions', although that is what they were, per Battle of Rethymno FAC) and Heraklion depot (recruit training/replacements) battalion. Again, as per Battle of Rethymno FAC, the caveats that these units were essentially barely armed and trained. The same source adds that the 13 guns were of 75mm and 100mm calibre, and some other details on individual weapons that are probably redundant or covered later on (Bofors guns etc).
Unit names amended. Could you please check. I could easily put the calibres in a footnote, but feel that that is getting a bit too detailed for any reader other than aficionados such as us. Let me know if you disagree.
Have made a small addition, see if you like it. On the calibres, agreed, I am happy with 'field guns'. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have tweaked your tweak - [79].
  • Since Bräuer led this operation, perhaps you'd also like to mention the unevenness of German paratrooper training: Bräuer had fought in WWI, but like many of the future paratroopers was a policeman in the interwar period, and the internal German army assessments found that the paratrooper units commanded by the former policemen were not well trained. In his post-battle assessment, Richthofen wrote that the paratroopers were virtually not trained in ground combat, and Sönke Neitzel mentions Bräuer by name to the effect that his men were insufficiently trained, and that he was completely out of his depth in the situation he found himself in (Deutsche Krieger, Propyläen 2020, pp. 205, 653-654 (note 332)).
I am seriously loath to get into this. I don't see it as relevant. Should I also discuss the short comings of the Commonwealth units' training, organisation, equipment, personnel, origins and prior combat experience and performance? Goodness knows that would make a long enough article. Similarly for the Greeks.
Only a minority of the Germans who fought at Heraklion were former policemen. Bräuer had been with the paratroopers for over five years, which seems long enough. To OR, of the four regimental landings his was arguably the most successful; admittedly against a low bar. And, to pluck two names from the air, both Student and Freyberg had immense experience - of the armed forces generally and of combat specifically; but both turned in performances which would have failed a first year military academy test.
I get your point. My only observation would be that while the shortcomings of the British and Greeks are generally acknowledged and discussed (also because they help explain why they were defeated) in English-language literature, the Fallschirmjägers' are not, at least not at the level of unit culture, training, etc. They are considered 'elite' and hence axiomatically competent, even if individual leaders come in for criticism. In this sense it would be a useful corrective, especially since these observations do not come from a historian, but from within the actual internal records of the German army. But I fully understand your reasons for not wanting to go into this. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I can understand that readers may bring preconceptions to the article, but I have carefully avoided describing the fallschirmjägers as elite, special, highly trained or similar.
  • As with the Battle of Rethymno article, I think we ought to add that the German assault on Heraklion was codenamed 'Orion'. I would also recommend that the German intention to land their forces in waves be mentioned either in the 'Opposing forces' section or in the 'Opposing plans'. It is mentioned in the lede, and at 'Initial assault' but the reader should be left in no doubt that the plan was from the beginning to make the assault in two waves, since the available air support was not sufficient otherwise (Abridged History p. 233 if needed).
I have moved some material up a section and added some linking phraseology. See what you think.
Looks good. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to the German plans that the plan was, following the capture of the airfield and the city of Heraklion, to move west with the Rethymno group while sending scouting patrols in the other directions (Abridged History p. 233).
Added.
  • Can we add that preliminary German bombing operations against the projected target areas (airfields, AA batteries, main towns) began on May 14? (Abridged History p. 234) Otherwise it might be unclear why the 14th Brigade thought a German air raid as something 'normal'.
We already have "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed." You feel that this needs expanding?
No, that's enough, I missed that at the first read-through. My only nitpick here would be that bombing =/= air superiority; perhaps something like 'conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to soften up their targets and isolate the island from seaborne reinforcements, as well as to establish air superiority'? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no issue with that if I could find a source which explicitly stated it. Have you got anything. It is obvious, and I suspect that the sources treat it as obvious, but it would be OR without something specific. If nothing leaps out at you I shall re-trawl through my sources.
  • The Abridged History p. 240 notes that the initial air attack of ca. 50 aircraft caused most damage in the city, rather than the defences.
This is contradicted by English-language sources. Eg Long "For more than an hour the area was ceaselessly bombed and machine-gunned by aircraft which came so low that more than one flew below a strand of barbed wire which the troops had strung tautly between the two [hills]." I could include both PoVs, but given that all sources agree that the attack was militarily ineffective and that that is already covered I am not sure that it would help a reader.
Agreed, it is a minor issue either way. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of the battalion dropping close to the airfield clarify that this was the II/1 Battalion. I would also suggest providing the detailed breakdown of the German casualties (312 dead, 108 wounded), because that is a *very* lopsided killed to wounded ratio and indicative of the slaughter of the German paratroopers. Also, the survivors were about 70 strong (p. 241).
No other source gives even a regiment by regiment breakdown of German casualties, never mind for individual battalions. How confident are you that those are accurate?
I rather find it surprising that they don't. It is an official military history, using other official military histories, so I'd rate it as reliable. The breakdown is 12 officers and 300 OR killed, 8 officers and 100 OR wounded. Such level of detail must have come from some source, after all. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Official History give a source? I hate to sound sniffy about it, but I must have read 6 or 7 detailed analyses or the German casualties, right down to separating aircrew casualties from the fallschirmjäger, but there is no suggestion that anything is available below division level. Several comment on the remarkably high proportion of killed. It feels a little like cherry picking sources - much as I would love to add that level of detail. Note my second paragraph in Aftermath.
  • 'Shultz' is a very unusual German name. Is it perhaps 'Schultz'?
I managed two typos in the one word. Corrected. (Schulz.)
  • II/2 Battalion also came under attack from armed civilians (p. 241).
According to my sources, not until later; as the area was thinly populated. For the night of 20/21 I already have " the II/2 Battalion, but this unit had heard that its missing components had been diverted to Maleme and, facing large bands of armed Cretan civilians".
  • by attacks from Cretan civilians civilians, gendarmes, and two companies of the 7th Greek Regiment (p. 241). Bräuer apparently also ordered III/1 Battalion to launch a simultaneous night attack on the city, but the order was never received by the III/1.
I already have "Schulz, to the west of Heraklion, was out of contact with Bräuer, but could hear heavy firing from the east". Do we need to go into details of things which didn't happen?
  • Add somewhere a mention of the Venetian-era Fortifications of Heraklion. It was the walls that mostly held off the III/1 Battalion, and the fact that the Greeks holding them suffered heavy losses in the morning air attacks of the 21st that allowed the paratroopers to get into the city again (p. 245)
Information on the walls added.
Imformation on the 21st was already there, but I have expanded it a little.
  • On the 22nd, the 3rd Regiment and armed civilians cleared the western and southern approaches of the city, even up to Archanes; the remaining Germans, about 500, held a line about 5km to the west of the city. The Black Watch also cleared the eastern approaches of the airfield from scattered paratrooper groups. On the same day, Greek and British began burying the dead Germans (approx. 1250) (p. 248)
Approximately 3,000 German airborne troops were killed during the Battle of Crete. To OR, it seems unlikely that more than 40% of these were at Heraklion and within two days. Especially as both Rethymno and Prison Valley were greater debacles.
I have incorporated most of the other information.
  • On the 23rd, following complaints by the locals that the Germans were using civilian hostages (mostly women and children) as human shields, the Greek military governor of Heraklion, Major General Michail Linardakis, sent an the local garrison commander, Major Tsangarakis, to the Germans, demanding that the civilians be released, on pain of reprisals against German POWs. The German commander agreed, but demanded the surrender of Heraklion and gave a two-hour deadline. Linardakis refused. (p. 251)
Added.
  • On the 23rd and 24th, Heraklion was heavily bombed and damaged. The water supply network was destroyed, and supply in general became difficult. On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos for rest and refitting, while the city was taken over by British units. (p. 251)
Added.
  • Following renewed aerial bombardment, on the 25th the Germans again attacked the city of Heraklion, but was beaten back. (pp. 255-256) During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes. There the Greek units were reorganized into two 'regiments' of about 1000 men each. (p. 256) At the same time, however, the Germans west of Heraklion skirted the city from the south, bypassed the few Greek forces there, and moved to join their comrades in the east. In the morning of the 26th, they captured a hill defended by part of the 2/4th Australian Battalion. The German forces were now concentrated east of the airfield, and began preparing an attack for the night of the 29th. (p. 256)
The last half sentence is contradicted by other sources. (And by the fact that it didn't happen.) And (ORing) it seems improbable: why throw lifes away attacking a dug in opponent when tanks and artillery are only a few miles away and heading your way?
"On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos"; "During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes." If the 3rd didn't withdraw on the 24/25th, which your first statement would suggest they did, could you clarify which units did withdraw? Thanks.
  • Chappel never bothered to inform the Greeks of the evacuation (😒), and the Greek units remained in place south of Heraklion in the Archanes area until the morning of the 29th, when they found out that the British were gone. Major General Linardakis met with Bräuer on the 30th in Heraklion and signed the surrender of his forces (so technically the battle continued until the 30th). (pp. 259-260). The Greek troops were taken as POWs at Maleme and Chania, but they were gradually released until November. (p. 260).
According to some accounts he didn't tell some of the Commonwealth outposts either.
Do you know where the Greek units were on the 30th? According to MacDonald they were disbursed and acting as a guerrilla force.
Date amended.
Details of the surrender and captivity added.
Were all of these Greek PoWs released by November?
I/1 dropped at Goumes. See the text.
The map matches Beevor. The most recent (1991) detailed source I could find with a decent map. Other maps and English-language text supports the landing area of the II/2 shown.
I am linking the Abridged History's map with my own translations of the unit names ([80]). I am pretty sure the Greek history's map is more accurate, both on the II/2 and the I/1 drop zones. Especially the latter is missing entirely from the map, don't you think that is odd? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re I/1 - no. I could literally give you ten sources without searching which state that it dropped 5 miles away at Gournes, alongside the regimental HQ. Most then go into considerable detail around what it did, capturing a radio station, assembling, being attacked by Creatans, Bräuer peeling off a platoon and force marching it to the airfield, the rest of the battalion marching in through the night and taking 200 casualties to Greek civilians, etc. That the I/1 landed well away from the area on the map is as nailed down as anything in the battle.
I have looked at the map and it it claims that is where the Germans landed it is in contradiction of every other RD on the topic. If it says that was the position it is getting much closer. (My Greek isn't up to that distinction.)
  • The Von Blücher brothers are often mentioned in works about the Battle of Crete (probably due to their famous ancestor), and they were killed at Heraklion. Perhaps we should point to them somehow?
Not in my opinion.
No problem. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question: why do you use only a single page from Prekatsounakis, who seems to be specialized on the battle?
I have grave doubts as to him being a " high-quality reliable source". I use him once, uncontroversially and redundantly, to indicate that I am aware of the work and have read it and to ward against possible accusations of not having met "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Then stay well away.
I haven't read the book, but suspected as much. In that case I would recommend relegating him to a 'further reading' section, unless the reference is truly crucial and can only be found there. By citing him, you implicitly consider him a RS. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's it. It reads really well, is quite exhaustive (apart from the days after the 21st) and tells the story very engagingly. An excellent piece of work, as usual. Constantine ✍ 19:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Constantine, from an old hand like yourself I appreciate that. I have, I think, addressed all of your points. Disagreeing with you in places, querying in others, but mostly gleefully incorporating the information. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just when I thought we were almost done, I found that I have access via the Vienna University Library, to the English translation of Golla's The German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41. He is indeed exhaustively detailed. I will pause my responses to you until I've had a look at it, and will be back at it tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine, I was looking to close this but if you have more to add I could hold off a little longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Not an area in which I have any expertise, but just a few minor points you may wish to consider. Otherwise looks great Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aircraft which had dropped the morning attackers were scheduled to drop..—perhaps The aircraft which had dropped the attackers in the morning were scheduled to drop...
In context - that is, following on from the previous sentence - I think that the existing form works best, or, at least, least badly.
  • it was still improvised in nature—perhaps it still appeared improvised
This would suggest that it only appeared improvised; the sources state that it was improvised.
  • other than their personal weapons, or not even those; — perhaps other than their personal weapons, sometimes not even those;
Done.
  • well dug in (twice)—dug-in
  • ill coordinated. (twice)—ill-coordinated
From Truflip99 above '"The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash'. Perhaps the two of you could reach a consensus on this and on dug in/dug-in? Or I could toss a coin?
  • number were too intoxicated to disembark from the Imperial—You may not know, but I wonder why and how men were allowed to get hopelessly drunk on active service?
The sources don't state. But in the chaos of a night evacuation, and the relief of believing the danger was over, I don't imagine that a secluded compartment was too difficult to find.
@Buidhe: Has Jim cut and pasted the last comment in error? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild This was originally posted to my FAC Armenian Genocide denial—I noted that these comments did not apply to my FAC. So I believe Jim indeed meant to put it here. (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe.
Thanks Jim, much appreciated. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert prose review.

  • "The German attack failed." -> "The initial German attack failed."?
Done.
  • "the Royal Navy with harbours on its north coast." -> "their Royal Navy" to make it clear that the Royal Navy is British.
Done.
  • "and must not be allowed to interfere with" -> "and must not interfere with"
Done.
  • "it was still improvised in nature, with, for example, the fuel store" Remove "for example" as this will fix the excessive commas here.
Moved to end of sentence.
  • "A radar station was established on a hill south east of the Heraklion airfield, Ames Ridge," Flip: ""A radar station was established on Ames Ridge, a hill south east of Heraklion airfied,"
Done.
  • "In the space of a week 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece," comma after week. I would also put a period after Greece to separate these two sentences, as the sentence is long and is two different thoughts
Comma not added; sentence split, but not where you suggested.
  • "With the pre-existing garrison of 14,000 this gave the Allies" comma after 14,000
Not done. It is fine as it is.
  • "Until and unless the paratroopers reached these they had only their pistols and hand grenades with which to defend themselves." This sentence sounds awkward to me. Maybe flip it to, "The paratroopers could only defend themselves with pistols and hand grenades until they reached the containers."
Your version switches the emphasis, so I prefer to not change this.
  • "Running east from the town he deployed" -> Chappel deployed
Done.

More to come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720, much appreciated. Your comments to date all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "Running east from the town Chappel deployed" comma after town.
IMO it reads fine as it is.
  • "Bräuer landed with this unit and although he was unable to make contact with his other battalions reported that the attack was progressing "as smooth as silk"." Commas after "and" and "battalions"?
Done.
  • "and, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Sagittario, sailed to Milos." Flip this to "and sailed to Milos, escorted by the Italian..." This will eliminate and space out the commas.
Done.
  • "Wary of the Allied naval patrols the German convoys had spent the night in the vicinity of Milos." Comma after patrols.
IMO it reads fine as it is.
  • "governor of Heraklion, Major-general Michail Linardakis sent" comma after Linardakis
Done.
  • "this cease; threatening to" Replace semi-colon with comma?
Oops. Done.
  • "and they were withdrawn on the next day." Delete on
Done.
  • "had been landed at Tymbaki" delete been
Done.
  • "and in any event by the time the query" Remove in any event
Done.

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, good detailed stuff there. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second readthrough

  • "It was also the only one with any blast pens, to protect aircraft on the ground." Remove any, remove comma
Done.
  • "In the space of a week 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece," When did this happen? How soon before the attack or date?
Oops. Very good point. I have gone with "By 29 April 47,000 Commonwealth troops of the defeated Allied expeditionary force were evacuated from mainland Greece. In the space of a week 27,000 of these arrived on Crete ..." Does that seem clear enough?
It's better, but one more quibble: "defeated Allied expeditionary force" In which campaign were they defeated? This is hinted at in this section, but there's no wikilink or explanation about the Allied defeat in Greece. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a second look, I realised that this was explained in the Background section. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members of the II/1 Battalion, which was dropping close to the airfield, who reached the ground alive" This sentence sounds weird to me. Maybe, "The II/1 Battalion was dropping close to the airfield, and those reached the ground alive..."
That in turn doesn't quite work for me, but I take you point. I have changed to "The II/1 Battalion was dropped close to the airfield; its men who reached the ground alive..." Feel free to poke at this though.
The semi-colon solves the problem, imo. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he discovered that the II/1 had been all but wiped out" I find this too vague a possibly jargon. Maybe, "he discovered that the majority of the II/1 were killed or missing"
That's not what the source says, and your suggestion is not necessarily the same as being wiped out. How would you feel about "had ceased to exist as a fighting unit"?
Why was it considered "ceased to exist"? Were they scattered too far away from each other to be considered a fighting unit? Were they too disorganised? Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I don't know. I could guess or hypothesise, but that would be OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it as-is then. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the Aftermath section is very long. I see you use semi-colons to break up the sentence, but I think it is better to use full stops, especially to separate the losses from the ships from the losses from people left in Crete.
Done.
  • Why is the article in Further Reading not used as a source in the article?
It was. But only to a minor extent, cus I am unconvinced of its reliability. A prior reviewer - Constantine, see above - inclined, I think, to agree, and suggested that I not use it to source any of the article but include it in "Further reading" as it is the only book length work dealing solely with the Battle of Heraklion.
My thoughts are, if it is not reliable enough to be used as a source, and it is not a primary document, then I don't think we should be recommending that readers look up this source. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

Those are all my comments.

Thanks again Z1720, well worth that second read through. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720: And addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (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) 3 May 2021 [81].

Johnny Owen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Welsh boxer by the name of Johnny Owen. A shy youngster, he became noted for never drinking, smoking or even dating to focus on his career. He won several national and international bantamweight titles before getting his shot at the WBC world title in 1980. However, the fight ended in tragedy after he was knocked out in the 12th round and never regained consciousness, dying at the age of just 24. I nominated this around six months ago but the review attracted no attention and was subsequently archived. Hopefully another run now will gain some traction. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • Source link for File:Juan Francisco Rodríguez (cropped).jpg is dead.

Licensing looks okay - FOP is fine in the UK (statue image), and since the other image looks to have first been published out of the USA before 1978 and was PD on the URAA date, it's fine. Just need a working source link. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've replaced the link on that image with a working one now. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I am not an expert in boxing so please consider this a non-expert review. I will complete this in sections due to my time constraints.

Prose review - Lede and Early life

  • "Three further victories led Owen to challenge for the British bantamweight title in only his tenth professional fight." Remove "only"
  • "becoming the first Welshman in more than 60 years to hold the belt." I assume "hold the belt" means "win the title"? Clarify or rephrase this.
    It does. It's a pretty common term in boxing, I've wikilinked belt to Championship belt to help make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He defeated the experienced Australian on points" Define or wikilink "on points"
  • "Owen went on to win seven consecutive bouts in the space of a year" Replace "in the space of" with "within"
  • "losing a torturously difficult contest by way of a twelfth round knockout." Replace "by way of" with "with"
    With doesn't quite fit right I think, you can't really lose with a knockout so to speak. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 25 wins, 11 by knockout, 1 draw and 2 defeats." Is the 11 knockouts included in the 25 wins? If so, it should be in brackets.
  • "Edith Owens (née Hale).[3][1]" References should be in numerical order ([1][3])
  • "The Owens family hailed from Llanidloes but had moved south," Remove "had"
  • "Will worked in an ironworks and was also an amateur boxer." Remove "also"
  • "His mother had also been born in Merthyr" Rephrase: "His mother was born in Merthyr"
  • "council house" Should be wikified, this not a commonly used term outside the UK.
  • "when the family was struck down by a flu virus," Replace "struck down" with "infected"
  • "Owen's father had worked as a miner for 13 years" Remove "had"
  • "However, his wife had suffered complications during the birth of the couple's" Remove "however"
  • "In his desperation, Owen's father nearly placed his children into care in order to be able to continue working but eventually reversed his decision after receiving assurances over his job safety." Remove "In his desperation", "in order to be able", "eventually". Replace "over his job safety" with "that he would not lose his job". (job safety is UK specific prose)

I will pause here and continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review - Amateur career

  • "coming to idolise fellow Merthyr born boxer Jimmy Wilde." Replace "coming to idolise" with "idolising"
  • "Broadbent describes how, by age ten, Owen had developed "some rudimentary" Remove had
  • "competing against other youth clubs from Wales and England." Delete other
  • "noted how Owen struggled to make achieve the weight" Delete make
  • "journey to try and make weight." Replace make with gain? Might be a UK way to say this...
    Make weight is a boxing term in relation to the pre-fight weigh-in where a fighter has to cut (or in this case gain) weight quickly before being weighed to meet the requirements of a certain weight class. I can try to rephrase if you still think necessary. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he began to hone his ring craft with one of his coaches, Idris Sutton, modelling his fighting style on Eddie Thomas." This sounds a little puffery, change to "where he trained with Idris Sutton and modelled his fighting style on Eddie Thomas."
  • "Griffiths though would later win a rematch between the pair." Remove though
  • "When Dick himself was unable to take training" Remove himself
  • "Wales and Scotland saw him draw praise in the local press." Replace "saw him draw" with "drew"
  • "After defeating his opponent, John Raeside, in the second round during their bout in Pontypool" Remove "defeating his opponent"
  • "he was chosen to represent Wales against Sweden in February 1975" What is he representing Wales in? Another tournament?
    The source doesn't really say what it was so I've added "a contest" to try and clarify slightly. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owen began fighting as a bantamweight soon after," Replace "began fighting" with "fought"
    I'm not sure of this one as it sounds a little like it was a one off rather than dropping to the weight that he would spend the rest of his career at. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professional career

  • "The decision to turn professional also prompted a change of name;" Remove also
  • "The decision to fight an already established opponent proved an astute one as victory." Replace "proved an astute one" with "proved astute"
  • "It was after his debut bout that Owen and his team" Replace with "After his debut bout, Owen and his team..."
  • "The Welsh Area Boxing Council reconsidered its decision soon after and subsequently allowed a title" Delete "soon after" and "subsequently"
  • "with the bout being regarded as an eliminator for the British title." Remove being

British bantamweight title

  • "Owen's championship win immediately resulted in him" Remove immediately
  • "and his belief that the referee" Replace with "and he believed the referee"
  • "nearly floored Maguire." What does floored mean? This needs to be defined or wikilinked.
    Reworded to knocked down. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such was Owen's dominance that Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight." Rephrase "Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight because of Owen's dominance."
    While I'm not averse to the change, this would leave the previous sentence and this one with "Maguire. Maguire's" which is a little repetitive. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response, the champion rallied in the ninth round but, when Owen opened up a large cut above his eye in the following round, Maguire's fight was over. Less than 90 seconds into the eleventh round, the referee stopped the fight as blood poured from Maguire's eye." These sentences should be merged as "The champion rallied in the ninth round but the referee stopped the fight in the eleventh round when Owen opened a large cut above Maguire's eye."

I'll pause here. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, I've carried out nearly all of the points with a couple of minor comments to review. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth bantamweight title

  • "By now the possibility of Owen competing for either the Commonwealth" Remove "by now"
  • "stopping his opponent" Replace stopping with defeating

European bantamweight title

  • No concerns

Rematch with Rodríguez

  • No concerns

Final bout

  • "Feeney started spritely in the opening rounds but again Owen's relentless" Remove again

Death

  • No concerns

Fighting style

  • "he never dated a girl in his lifetime having made the decision to abstain from relationships." Change to "he abstained from romantic relationships."
  • "Such was his leanness, Owen's manager, Dai Gardiner, was even accused of starving Owen for him to compete at bantamweight." Change to "Owen's manager, Dai, Gardiner, was accused of starving Owen to maintain his lean physique and allow him to compete at bantamweight."

Legacy

  • "Johnny Owen Carer's Award are also presented annually" Remove also
  • "which was performed by Pintor who travelled from his home" Put a comma after Pintor
  • You have a quote in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Direct quotes need a citation immediately after, even the source is quoted later in the paragraph.
  • "Johnes's research demonstrates how Owen's story was told and retold, with its meaning and relevance shifting in the postindustrial environment of Merthyr and South Wales." This is interesting information that needs some expansion. How has the mythology and relevance of Owen's story changed? I think you can give a one or two-sentence explanation on this.

That's the end of my prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've finished up those last points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, I cut and pasted the wrong editor name.Apologies to you both. Z1720? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I will take a closer look later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours please post a note on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second prose readthrough

Just a few comments:

  • I added some non-breaking spaces to dates throughout the article. Please revert if they are not helpful.
  • "The two fighters possessing near identical records;" Change possessing to possessed
  • "While some Welsh fans had travelled to support Owen although they were said to be "outnumbered 100 to 1 at least"." Delete "while" or "although"
  • "The documentary won two BAFTA awards, including one for best documentary drama." If the doc won two awards, why is the other one not named?
    The other award was for Best Direction which seems more like a technical award rather than directly related to Owen. Kosack (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think since we are talking about the documentary here, which was about Owen, we can include both awards. If it won five awards, I would understand limiting the number we name but it seems weird how one award is mentioned but not the other. Also, the BAFTA website mentions it won Best Doc in the Cymru (Welsh) section. Should this be mentioned so it is not confused with BAFTA Award for Best Documentary? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: I've added in both awards and made a note of the Welsh section. Kosack (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't respond in 24 hours, please message my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments above have been addressed. I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I'll comment eventually... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now eventually. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I would suggest summarizing the titles he has won as the third sentence (similar to the first paragraph of Miguel Cotto for instance).
    The titles are already mentioned in the lead so creating a sort of introduction to the lead itself seems a bit odd. There aren't many examples to choose from, but the existing boxing FAs (Michael Gomez and Susi Kentikian) use a similar format as here. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatedly, if you do that, I would suggest breaking off the rest of the first paragraph and starting the second paragraph with "Owen began boxing at the age of eight..."
  • Owen would beat Sutton ===>>> Owen beat Sutton
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welsh Area bantamweight title ===>>> bantamweight title of the Welsh Area (only to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I'm not 100% sure if that makes sense?)
    Sea of blue does mention "when possible", and in this case, it's the official name of the title, so rearranging seems counter-productive to the article. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including a defence of his British title against Wayne Evans <<<=== I might instead mention the number of defenses, unless you are highlighting this one because Evans is also Welsh in which case I would specify that.
    It was his only defence of the title, that's why I singled it out as the other fights were non-title bouts. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WBC champion ===>>> World Boxing Council (WBC) champion
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • his version of the world bantamweight title ===>>> his world bantamweight title ("version" makes it sound like it's not real)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • torturously difficult contest <<<=== "torturously" seems a bit editorialized. I'd rather you instead mention or add why the contest was difficult. (maybe the only three knockdowns of his career?)
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you need some of the numbers (in particular, "in his sixth professional fight", "Three further victories", "recorded five further victories"). The years might make more sense at times, as the second paragraph currently doesn't have any dates.
    Trimmed a couple. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his death concretely led to boxing fights being shortened, that's worth mentioning in the lead.
    Although the ESPN article does link it, the boxing hierarchy would probably never admit it was concretely down to that. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • the fourth of a family of eight children ===>>> the fourth of eight children OR the fourth child in a family with eight
  • had Irish ancestry. <<<=== Are you specifying that his mother had Irish ancestry or his mother's father? (maybe separate into another sentence)
  • in a rented council house, <<<=== you don't need the comma
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur

Professional

  • I'd suggest titling this part as a subsection called "Welsh bantamweight title"
  • although this was dissuaded as being ===>>> although he was dissuaded from this option because it was
  • Owen's initial hopes were low, Kelvin stated ===>>> Owen's initial aspirations were low, with Kelvin stating
  • Owen was driven ===>>> Nonetheless, Owen was driven
  • Owen's stock <<<=== "stock" seems informal. Maybe "standing"?
  • Irishman Neil McLaughlin in his opponent's home nation <<<=== Just checking: Is McLaughlin from Ireland or Northern Ireland? And is he Irish or Northern Irish? I thought they were separate back then?
  • The card suffered several interruptions; ===>>> The card suffered several interruptions:
  • He finished his first year ===>>> Owen finished his first year (and then, start the next sentence with "He")
  • Promoter Heddwyn Taylor raised the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title after his victory. ===>>> This led promoter Heddwyn Taylor to raise the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title.
  • Despite Owen having already beaten Sutton ===>>> Although Owen had already beaten Sutton
  • With their hopes knocked back ===>>> Unable to challenge for the title,
  • found themselves short ===>>> found themselves in need
  • Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout and ===>>> Even though Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout,
  • before Owen rocked Sutton ===>>> until Owen rocked Sutton
  • he "bionic bantam" <<<=== should this be capital? (it is in the lead.)
  • Was the title vacant or was Sutton the champion? Should specify if vacant. If Sutton wasn't the champion, why was he the one Owen needed to challenge?
All done in this section. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British

  • The offer of a British title fight with Maguire initially never materialised and Owen's next fight was a fourth-round knockout of debutant fighter Terry Hanna at Ebbw Vale Leisure Centre in June 1977. ===>>>> When the offer of a British title fight with Maguire initially did not materialise, Owen instead fought debutant Terry Hanna at Ebbw Vale Leisure Centre in June 1977, defeating him with a fourth-round knockout. (parallelism issue)
  • Mention his age when he won the title
  • he had faced the stance ===>>> he had faced a fighter with that stance
  • His opponent was fellow Welshman Wayne Evans with the two fighters possessing ===>>> His opponent was fellow Welshman Wayne Evans. The two fighters possessed
  • anticipated and was both ===>>> anticipated as it was both
  • his opponent's eardrum ===>>> his eardrum ("his" is Owen)
  • flooring his opponent ===>>> knocking him down

Commonwealth

  • stopping his opponent ===>>> stopping him
  • eight-year age advantage <<<=== rephrase to say "younger" rather than advantage? Not sure if being so much younger is inherently an advantage.
  • including being named ===>>> including Owen being named
  • Writers' Club becoming ===>>> Writers' Club, becoming
  • the first boxer to win the award since Howard Winstone ===>>> and was the first boxer to win the award since Winstone

European

  • being rearranged ==>>> and it was rearranged
  • home-town ===>>> hometown (like the rest of the article)
  • challenger's camp ===>>> Owen's camp
  • sat waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training that took up hours of time of Owen's sessions. ===>>> waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training, taking up hours of Owen's sessions.
  • What is the issue with wintergreen oil?
    It causes severe irritation to the eyes if applied. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • went further and describes the decision ===>>> "went further and described the decision" OR "goes further and describes the decision"

Rematch

  • Make this a subsubsection of the previous subsection. Otherwise, it's misleading to call the previous subsection "European title" when he didn't win the title in that section.
  • prizefund ===>>> prize fund
  • The venue was filled to capacity, with more than 1,800 spectators, and the fight started slowly. Rodríguez restricted the early pace of the opening rounds by holding Owen on the blindside of the referee. ===>>> The venue was filled to capacity, with more than 1,800 spectators. The fight started slowly as Rodríguez restricted the early pace of the opening rounds by holding Owen on the blindside of the referee. (split the setup from the fight)
  • although Owen did cause damage to his opponent after trapping him on the ropes during the sixth. ===>>> . Owen did cause damage to his opponent after trapping him on the ropes during the sixth. (new sentence)

Final bout

  • With Owen now European champion ===>>> With Owen the European champion
  • a fight against the WBC title holder, Mexican Lupe Pintor was rumoured. <<<=== What do you mean by rumoured?
  • Now ranked as the number four ===>>> Having risen to be the number four
  • Discussions between the two parties had suggested a potential meeting in Wales ===>>> The two parties had discussed a potential meeting in Wales
  • and the fight promoter promptly intervened and the press backed off <<<=== start a new sentence
  • They came together <<<=== too informal
  • while some Welsh fans had travelled to support Owen <<<=== start a new sentence
  • His pressure told <<<=== "told" isn't the right word
  • when he landed a strong shot ===>>> by landing a strong shot (also, do you know what kind of punch?)
  • Pintor began to fight less defensively ===>>> Pintor began to fight more aggressively (but it kind of sounds like he was fighting aggressively before too with "tried to take control of the fight")
  • remaining of the round ===>>> remaining in the round
  • right-hand <<<=== no hyphen
  • beer and other missiles <<<=== missiles is too informal

Death

  • He remained in a coma, although his doctor believed his condition was improving, until 4 November when a second bout of pneumonia ultimately ended his life ===>>> Although his doctor believed his condition was improving, a second bout of pneumonia on 4 November ultimately ended his life.
  • Owen left £45,189 to his family and had earned less than £7,000 ===>>> Owen left £45,189 to his family, having earned less than £7,000
  • being fought over 12 instead of 15 rounds ===>>> being shortened to 12 rounds instead of 15
    I think fought over is more fitting. Shortened sounds more like an adjustment than an actual rule change. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting style

  • at bantamweight.. <<<=== ..
  • His great skill wasn't his strength - <<<=== wrong dash (twice)
  • , Srikumar Sen of The Times <<<=== start a new sentence

Legacy

  • which was performed by Pintor <<<=== "performed" doesn't sound right. maybe "presented" or "hosted"?

Overall

  • Nothing major.
  • The biggest comments are probably on the lead.
  • I'd suggest adding year ranges to the sub-section headers.
  • Run-on sentences are a common issue. I pointed them out above.
  • The prose structure is pretty good in terms of flow from sentence-to-sentence and paragraph-to-paragraph.

I intend to support after these comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for taking up the review. I've implemented the majority of the points above with a couple of comments thrown in too. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is so much detail about his grandparents really on-topic?
    I don't think it's particularly exhaustive and provides a good idea of his background, for example the mining communities and some boxing heritage. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owen's initial aspirations were low, Kelvin stated how Owen had turned professional with the ultimate aim of claiming a British title or a Lonsdale belt" - I don't know much about British boxing, but it seems to me from reading about the Lonsdale belt that it's not something I'd describe as a low aspiration.
    It's all a bit relative, I don't think anybody ever dreams of gaining a Lonsdale belt but it's still an achievement to get one, although not so much outside Britain. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owen's manager, Dai Gardiner, was accused of starving Owen to maintain his lean physique and allow him to compete at bantamweight" - Do sources consider this to be a founded accusation?
    No, Owen was well known for his almost skeletal physique. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fitzgerald and Hudson ref needs page numbers
    Added. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox says 11 wins by KO - looking at the table, I'm getting 10 - 1) Murray 2) Kellie 3) Hanna 4) Maguire 5) Oag 6) Evans 7) Larmour 8) Angliss 9) Smith 10) Garcia
    The Glyn Davies fight ended when he retired due to damage sustained. This is still classed as a TKO victory in boxing.Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipate supporting once these are cleared up. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've replied to all of the comments above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • "fragile appearance" would put the nicknames the other round as bionic bantam isn't necessarily about being fragile.
  • "representing Wales" in what context?
  • "later in a Los Angeles hospital" was the bout in LA?
    Yeah. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why only one nickname referenced in the infobox? It's mentioned in the prose so as long as it's referenced there, no need.
  • "born in Merthyr, although" I know Merthyr is the same as Merthyr Tydfil but do all our readers?
  • "Merthyr born" previous comment notwithstanding, this phrasing should be hyphenated.
  • "In his youth, he suffered a loss to Charlie Magri in a bout in Gurnos" this feels isolated, is there a context for who Magri was/went on to be?
  • "became well known for" would think that should be hyphenated as well.
  • "Owen began fighting as a bantamweight" might be worth just letting us know if this was the heavier or lighter class.
  • "points.[21][17]" order.
  • "He enjoyed a ..." -> "Owen enjoyed a..."
  • You linked amateur boxing in the prose but not professional.
  • ring name has an article.
  • Lonsdale belt, our article capitalised Belt.
  • "prize fund of £125" don't we normally call it "purse"? And can we inflate £125?
  • "controversial draw" any word on why?
    Owen's camp claimed a victory but the constant disruption and rowdy crowd were seen as factors in the judges being a bit reluctant to go against the hometown fighter. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referee (boxing) has an article.
  • Points decision does too.
  • The actual Six Million Dollar Man was Steve Austin (character) rather than the TV show...

Takes me to "British bantamweight title" section. Advanced warning, why is the results table in reverse chronological order? I know "that's how it's done on other articles" but MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL is looking for a "good reason". I can't think of a single other sporting BLP or article which presents similar information in reverse order (e.g. international goals, international centuries, Boat Race results etc...) so why is boxing special? More to come on the rest of the article... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "holding" is a bit jargon, is there a glossary definition which could be linked?
  • "Maguire never materialised" perhaps "failed to materialise".
  • I know we shouldn't partial link formal terms but I wonder if we could somehow link Ebbw Vale?
  • knockout has an article.
  • "hold the belt since Bill Beynon in 1913. He was awarded the belt" to avoid repeat of belt, perhaps first one could be "title"?
  • ""by Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester while" comma after Gloucs.
  • ""that the young fighter was unaccustomed to" -> "to which the young fighter was unaccustomed."
  • "Owen off guard" hyphenate and I guess this is meant literally as well as figuratively!
  • ""he was able to emerge victorious" -> "he emerged victorious".
  • "Leisure Centre. His opponent" merge.
  • "both entered the fight" bout (to avoid repeating fight(er)).
  • "Evans early on" perhaps "Evans early in the round"
  • "in Ebbw Vale on" ok, could link it here?
  • "BBC Wales Sports Personality of the Year" any suitable link? SPOTY is a thing we all know but our global audience?
  • "award since Howard Winstone more" no need to repeat his first name.
  • "case of influenza" you mentioned "flu" earlier without linking, be consistent with what you call it and link it first time.
  • Weight class (boxing) has a section on the "weigh-in".
  • "118 lb" convert and possibly even link units, not sure everyone knows that lb = pounds.
  • "in 3 ounces overweight" convert/link again.
  • "a capacity crowd" any idea what that might have been?
    I can't find any concrete numbers unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ignored Dick Owens's complaints" MOS suggest avoiding the s's construction.
  • "to the world " internationally? "to the world" feels a little whimsical.
  • "retaining a Lonsdale belt" see previous comment re:Belt.
  • "due for late spring" supposed to avoid seasons as they are location-dependent.

That takes me to "Final bout". More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zárate has a diacritic.
  • "an option Pintor was open to" -> "an option to which Pintor was open"
  • "the Grand Olympic Auditorium, Los Angeles on" comma after LA.
  • "receiving a fervent support." the "a" seems unnecessary to me.
  • Could link odds.
  • "of the whole fight" is "whole" needed here?
  • "and Tom Jones" might be worth just adding "the singer" or something here.
  • "Wales, Nicholas Edwards sent" comma after Edwards.
  • "thin physique .. lean physique" shade repetitive.
  • "admiration of Owen, remarking "Owen" can we avoid Owen .. Owen?
  • Could link BBC Four.
  • "the Western Mail described him" overlinked.
  • "Johnes's research" again, MOS no likey.
  • Not sure {{Boxing record summary}} has row/col scopes, any thoughts on compliance with MOS:DTT?
    I've rebuilt the table manually to incorporate those now. Kosack (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment above re chronology of table is one thing, also date format doesn't need to be truncated.
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted.

That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, last few remarks:

  • "6 (10), 2:45" what does that mean? And when the time is missing, is that because it's not known?
    The first numbers are in which round the right was won and how many it was scheduled for. So, in that example, the fight was won in round six of a ten round fight. In regards to the times, these were added by another user and I've only just noticed that they aren't supported by the ref used so I'm a little unsure where they came from. Removed them. Kosack (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely record after first fight is 1–0–0 instead of 1–0? And that reflects back into the prose where "an 18–0 record" probably ought to include the draw...

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 1 May 2021 (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) 3 May 2021 [82].

Can't Get You Out of My Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a major hit by Kylie Minogue. They say third time is the charm, so let's see how this goes. Huge thanks to Baffle gab1978 for giving the prose an amazing and fresh look! — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: Add captions to the tables per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, thanks for the review. i added captions. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to get this within the week. Unfortunately, computer issues have been making editing rather difficult lately, but since I had participated in the first FAC and completely missed the second one, I want to try my best to help. That and I love this song. Please ping me if I have not posted any comments in the next week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thank you! Your feedback is always welcome! :) — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a quick question. I have done some minor edits to the article while reading through it. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Were there any negative reviews for the song? The article only has positive reviews, and while I believe that most critics responded positively to the song, I would be curious if you saw any negative reviews? Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, actually I could not find any negative reviews haha :) except the one by Jude Rogers of The Quietus, who apparently did not like the orchestral reboot of the song. =) Also, thanks for the c/e, I really appreciate it! — Tom(T2ME) 09:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. It seems like even critics who gave mixed or negative reviews of the album still enjoyed this song. I was just curious about this when reading the article. Apologies for the delay with my review. Computer issues are quite annoying lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot remember if I had asked you this or not so apologies if this is repetitive. In this interview, Minogue briefly talks about the white jumpsuit being inspired by Grace Jones (it is around the 1:30 mark of the video). It is a rather minor detail, but I wanted to raise it to your attention, especially since the jumpsuit is one aspect of the music video that received the most attention (and rightfully so).

I think the article is in incredibly shape. As I had said in an above comment, I had participated in the first FAC and I supported it for promotion at the time. I still support for promotion now as my minor comment/question is not enough to hold me back from doing so. I hope to see more Kylie Minogue songs in the FAC space. I remember being instantly hooked by this song and being so impressed by the music video when I first heard and saw them (but as an American, I think I heard and saw both of them at least five years after their releases lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47! I really appreciate your comments and feedback! Hopefully this time we manage to bring the bronze star at the top of the article! PS. I added the information about Grace Jones ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 17:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
  • This is three weeks in and the nomination shows little sign of a gathering consensus to support. Unless activity here picks up considerably over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived.
Have you contacted all of the editors who have commented on previous FAC nominations of this? Do you have any favours you can call in?
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there are a couple of general reviews ongoing. So long as they move along in a reasonably timely fashion the nomination is unlikely to be archived for lack of comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, can I please get an update on the nomination? There are 4 supports and 0 opposes. So I think the future status of this article is pretty clear, I presume at least. — Tom(T2ME) 15:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

[edit]
  • The first sentence would be more effective if "that was" was removed: "'Can't Get You Out of My Head' is a song recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her eighth studio album Fever (2001)". I don't think that arrangement would be grammatically incorrect since I have seen it on many articles.
  • I would change "Record label Parlophone" to "Parlophone Records" as natural disambiguation is usually preferable
  • I am not sure a link to Record chart in the lead is necessary. Just "The song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries" works too in my opinion.
  • Capitalizing the first letter in certification names, "Gold", "Platinum", etc. is optimal.
  • I don't think I understand your query here?
  • "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was Minogue's breakthrough US commercial success" -- While I personally agree, these two sentences being merged gives the impression this was the first time she reached the US top 10. Maybe try "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, Minogue's first top 10 in 13 years".
  • "Minogue has included it on the set lists of most of her concert tours" -- Most of is a specific claim that would require a source. "Various" or "many of" would be a safer word choice.
  • Were the decade-end lists it appeared on commercial or critical?
  • I would include the nationalities of Dennis and Davis while introducing them
  • Link: Loop (music)
  • "Three and a half hours" should have a nbsp. Same with "three minutes and fifty seconds"
  • "Dennis later said" -- Mention when this was
  • "a "la la la" hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part" -- by whom?
  • The source reviewer can decide whether this is appropriate to use for the song's composition, but it is odd it doesn't mention the critic's name
  • See if it might be possible to paraphrase some of the more lengthy quotes in the Composition and lyrical interpretation section.
  • Unsure why the other songs' composition is relevant here: "On the album, 16 of Minogue's earlier songs were re-worked and backed by an orchestra"
  • Relevant to distinguish between her regular disco style and something different she did with The Abbey Road Sessions'.
  • Some sentences appear to be in passive voice.
  • If I remember correctly, it was the ARIA Charts one which has been removed now. I will try to read the article again at a later date to catch more.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also finding the use of ARIA Charts as a source for composition details a bit iffy
  • The Herald Sun list being compiled in celebration of Minogue's 50th birthday isn't something worth noting in my opinion.
  • Minogue's own website should definitely not be used to source it reaching number one in every European country except Finland
  • I would remove the Victoria Beckham song's mention. Not relevant since CGYOOMH was not blocked by it.
  • Wouldn't use Minogue's website as a source for it becoming her best-selling US single since "The Loco-Motion" either.
  • "British fashion designer and Minogue's stylist William Baker" -- "Minogue's stylist" gives enough context so remove "British fashion designer"
  • Were there no regular critical reviews for the music video upon its initial release? The "Impact" section seems comprised entirely of retrospective events.
  • "The mash-up performance was ranked at number 40" -- Remove "mash-up" from this sentence as this is already clear in the preceding one.
  • I am pretty sure the Australian charts website can be edited by random people, it shouldn't be used to source Love at First Sight's inclusion as the B-side.
  • Is there no secondary source for her SNL performance? That is quite unlikely.
  • No, there is not. She performed this in 2002, and most of the sources from that time are dead. Same with the GMA performance. That's why I am citing the video. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second single from Fever", "the fourth single from Fever" -- These do not really contribute to the reader's understanding of the Live performances section.
  • "ninth studio album Body Language, ." -- Punctuation error.
  • The Live performances section relies a lot on primary sources. If these performances really didn't receive coverage in reliable secondary sources then they are being given undue weightage here. Just cover the notable ones.
  • Lee Barron is linked in the prose but not in the ref.
  • A MetroLyrics link would be beneficial in External links, since there is discussion of the song's lyrical content in the article.
A lot of efforts have clearly gone into the article. But I do take concern with the prose and there are some questionable sources used. A good source review will do wonders. Good luck.--NØ 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan. Thanks for your comments. I did most of them and also left some replies where I thought it was necessary to clarify things. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I will have to give it another read after the source review to see if I have any more comments. Good to see other reviewers will be posting feedback in the meantime.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figure there is no need for me to be nitpicky about the sourcing when someone who specializes in source reviews will take care of that anyway. Here are the final batch of comments before I support!
  • Link Demo (music) and Single (music) in the Writing and Release section.
  • Stick with either Parlophone Records or just Parlophone, I slightly prefer the former.
  • The New Rolling Stone Album Guide could be wikilinked, also shouldn't this be in italics rather than quotes (it is in the reference)?
  • "hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part by the music critics" -- "The" could be removed.
  • I would link One night stand as it might help some readers.
  • Are you sure Electronic music shouldn't be linked?
  • I see that the bit about the Orchestra album having 16 tracks is still here. Why?
  • I know neo-disco is linked before, but the first mention of disco should be linked separately. A link to Orchestra probably wouldn't hurt either, for those unfamiliar with the concept.
  • Optionally, the la la la hook could be introduced with a link to Non-lexical vocables in music.
  • PopMatters is italicized on most FAs I have seen.
  • The bit about the Pitchfork writer thinking that it "launched Minogue back into commercial relevance in the US" does not flow with the rest of the paragraph and doesn't sound like a very critical opinion either, could be omitted entirely or maybe incorporated in the Commercial performance section.
  • "The Guardian included the song on their list of The Best Number One Records" -- Assumably referring to UK number-ones? Should be mentioned.
  • Why is Top 40 being capitalized in "UK's Top 40"? It's not the name of the chart, so isn't it referring to just the #1-40 positions on the chart?
  • Introduce Michael Rooney as an American choreographer.
  • "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the music video for "Can't Get You Out of My Head"" -- At this point in the article it is already established which song's video is being talked about, so honestly even just "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the video" would work.
  • "In 2009, Minogue performed "a dancetastic rendition" of the song on the "For You, for Me" tour" -- Reframe this to explicitly convey Caulfield was the one who described it as "a dancetastic rendition", or alternatively paraphrase.

--NØ 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now support. My final query, which does not hinder my support, is, why are the tour names being put in quotation marks? This seems to be discouraged by WP:TOURDAB. Everything else looks great!--NØ 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • Back in the day there were a lot of single releases, and the label heavily promoted the song, so that is why there are a lot of track listings. Btw, resolved the other queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • It's only used for a release format (namely downloads for some alternate mixes and a live performance). Amazon actually is fine for non-contentious details like that, distribution dates, and duration. Its customer reviews on the other hand should be avoided. While one is free to replace it with things like iTunes or Spotify, this is some food for thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Snuggums pointed out, Amazon is fine for formats and release dates. I don't think there is no need to be replaced with a link from Spotify or iTunes/Apple Music, since they are similar platforms as well. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

I've looked at this before, so hopefully get something up soon.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • From the lead, "notable" from "is notable for its 'la la la' hook" is inappropriate POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Unlink "obsession" per WP:OVERLINK
  • The term "iconic" from "became an iconic fashion statement" is puffery
  • I don't feel "set lists of various of her concert tours" reads very well. Try "set lists of various concert tours" instead.
  • "has a more-noticeable musical arrangement"..... changed or altered would work better here
  • Much of the first paragraph from "Legacy" (except for the Rolling Stone bit) seems like it's better for critical reception when that seems to focus more on rankings and how much critics liked the song than it does impact, and same goes for awards.
  • Ref#9 and Ref#80 are missing thier release/publication dates (respectively 1 October 2001 and 8 January 2007)
  • Move the 28 December 2002 date from the title in Ref#171 to the "date" parameter
  • Don't italicize "Kylie.com" or News.com.au (which should have an uppercase "N" instead of a lowercase one)
  • While not the worst publication I've come across, I recommend using something stronger than Gigwise for the bit on "A Kylie Christmas".

Get through these (along with changing the caption for one image and using something else for the music video's jumpsuit), and it should be ready to become an FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks for your comments! I resolved all of them with the exceptions of the last one. I really could not find a more reliable source than Gigwise to reference her performance of the song at the 'A Kylie Christmas' concert. It seemed to be under-reported honestly. PS. do you like the new MV screenshot? — Tom(T2ME) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! File:Can't Get You Out of My Head MV screenshot.png has much better lighting, so media review passes and I also support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv

[edit]

Beginning one now! — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv Thanks a bunch! — Tom(T2ME) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1019520698.
  • Lacking a lot of linking consistency within references: either link the works/publishers on every occurrence, the first occurrence only, or none e.g. M Magazine is not linked on first occurrence but Sound on Sound is. (You might want to choose every occurrence because I think some of the certification templates will always link the publisher with no way to turn it off.) In ref #7, "[[Kylie Minogue|Kylie]].com" is not helpful as it doesn't link to information about the website.
  • "Ten Years Ago On 8Th September 2001" (ref #7) should have "8th" and "on" in lowercase (the latter per MOS:TITLECAPS).
  • Ref #15 should have en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) between the parts of the title.
  • I don't see how ref #49's statements like ""Can't Get You Out of My Head" would be the first of a slew of Minogue songs that would top the dance charts over the next few years" actually support the claim "It is Minogue's strongest commercial breakthrough in the US, a region where she had previously achieved limited success", nor why it (biography.com) is reliable. Nor do I see ref #50 supporting this claim (it's talking about a potential "break" in the future, not saying one happened).
  • Is it possible to get any more specific on ref #57 – a unique identifier for the episode (e.g. series and number), ideally a timestamp or a link to an official clip from the show with a timestamp? Similar question with refs #70,71,82 (though they give an exact date, which is better).
  • Why is The Guardian (ref #84) marked as subscription required?
  • Ref #85 has the wrong URL (doesn't match the title name).
  • Refs #127,129 (Romanian and South African charts) need a publisher name.
  • Inconsistency in refs #140–142,162 over whether to say "Australian Recording Industry Association" or "ARIA".
  • Spotchecks on 10% of refs: 9, 22, 25, 40, 53, 63, 82, 84, 86, 96, 102, 103, 116, 126, 134, 146, 158, 167. Have to take the 3 liner notes references on good faith, and only issues with the rest are those below:
    • I don't think #40 cites what it's used for (it doesn't mention "Not Such an Innocent Girl"), but the other two refs for that statement do, so I'd recommend just removal of #40.
    • Ref #53(c)'s "... subtly distorting her face but retaining her glamour" sounds a bit close to the original to me: "In doing so, her face subtly distorts, yet remains glamorous." It's specifically the word "subtly", which you could drop or replace and then I think we're off the border line of clopping.
    • Ref #63: "In it, Morley "turned the lonely drive..."" could attribute the quote to Morley, just because I didn't know from reading the sentence whether this was a biographer/critic talking about Morley, or him talking. So just "In it, Morley said he "turned the lonely drive..."".
    • Ref #84: can't see how it (or #85) support the claim, "She also included "Can't Get You Out of My Head" on the Kylie Summer 2015 tour". It doesn't mention the song name in the article.
    • Ref #126 has some cruft in the URL "&q=billboard+january+2002", that highlights the search terms you entered ("billboard january 2002") and can be removed.
Overall, the majority of these issues are about formatting, and the article already has a well-researched reliable bibliography with thorough representation of all major aspects of the topic and few to no factual errors. So once these problems are fixed, I'll be happy to support. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bilorv Thank you again for the source review. Much appreciated. I believe I resolved all of the queries including linking every work/publisher in the references and adding the air date for the Graham Norton episode. Feel free to double-check everything in order to see if I missed something. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After this small edit I'm ready to support. Great work! — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.